Re: Coronavirus
 

I suppose we'll know a lot more in a month or so with all the mass protests going off around this country and worldwide all ignoring social distancing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's a drum jfman likes to keep beating even when it's wrong.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...7&d=1591451533

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm sure like being the fifth biggest economy in the world a moveable feast. Where are we now? Second, third?

They should put that on the side of a bus. Either way it's utterly damning and evidence of a situation hopelessly handled despite having plenty of warnings that other countries did not have.

And a situation that will continue to be mismanaged until we test, trace and isolate effectively.

Death counts yesterday (not that they necessarily died yesterday): 10 in Wales, 6 in Scotland and 1 in Northern Ireland.

What's a good score for England? 300? 250?

Re: Coronavirus
 

South Korea is geographically isolated. UK is part for Europe.
Link

That is the scale of infection in the UK before it was that noticeable. Try contact tracing for 1.5% of Londoners and the rest of the UK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Never heard of international flights?

I think you'll find that Great Britain is an island, off of mainland Europe. Can easily have implemented airport screening.

The point is you wouldn't need to contact trace everyone within that 1.5% if we had the virus under control. Instead we decided to go for herd immunity week. Of course, you are happy to ignore these realities simply to defend the Government at all costs.

Once again - at what point does the death count reach a point where you will accept there has been ANY mismanagement by the Government?

The fact we hadn't confirmed human to human transmission is because we had no routine testing programme. This was "a mild flu".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given the amount of idiots protesting around the country no amount of tracing will put the lid back on this madness ,expect a second wave:(

Re: Coronavirus
 

l think its pretty inevitable that there will be a second wave papa.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think it will just trundle along at its current rate. It’ll become less newsworthy. Hey, football will back in a few weeks, they can go back to talking about that.

In September it will still be like, daily death toll of 150, and the response will be “yeah whatever, going for a pint?“

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's no evidence to support it trundling along at the current rate if lockdown restrictions ease. More people, having more indoor close contacts means more people exposed.

Unless they can reliably find and isolate carriers, quickly, to minimise risk to the population at large the outcome is inevitable. It's been seen all over the world.

What's different next time that will prevent it? Handwashing to GSTQ?

It's wishful thinking, just like "it's just a flu" in February and that Italy would get it worse than us because of multigenerational households.

Now with an adequate and reliable testing regime I'd agree with you. The numbers of people dying would be less relevant - the big questions would be what's the chances that I'm unknowingly carrying or those around me are? If people had a system they had confidence in then they would go for a pint.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If some people dont stop arguing with everyone else, just for the sake of it, there are going to be more enforced 'rests'.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My sisters Covid-19 test came back negative :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good :D :tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Myself, and many others, have still been going to work after this all kicked off, and like lots of others we cannot (while at work) always keep at distance.

Best of luck getting a test.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/corona...e-coronavirus/

Well done to your sister Hom3r, must be a massive weight off for the family :tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm rather peeved that the daily update has been abandoned over the weekend..

Re: Coronavirus
 

+1

---------- Post added at 04:53 ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 ----------

Yeah they got rid of that quietly.:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Great news.

---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

I'm actually quite pleased.

---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 ----------

Do you have any temperature checks etc when entering the premises? What's changed there since before-Covid, if you can remember that far back? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Another country easing lockdown restrictions having got the virus under control. Malaysia (population 31 million, 8,303 cases, 117 deaths). Contact tracing app in place.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-he...KBN23E08L?il=0

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think a few of us suspected this.
https://www.ft.com/content/72edead1-...8-aacfd84ed638

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sometimes you only get two choices in a situation (three if you completely ignore it).

Whichever choice is made, there's a 50/50 chance you'll have been wrong :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

If one choice is informed, and the other is based on guesswork, it's more than a 50/50 chance you'll get it wrong if you choose the one based on guesswork.

You are confusing flipping a coin with making a decision based on the best advice available at the time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Suspected what? Hindsight?

Re: Coronavirus
 

And I wish they had quarantined people coming into the country sooner but that won't get mentioned.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/02/gover...ures-12793654/

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2020...iefing-update/

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...gures-11999188

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12...iewing-figures

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9544406.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/w...-a4457531.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

Its more a case of the government limiting press scrutiny as reporters have faced restrictions in covering the government’s daily press briefings.

The media are limited to virtual participation, and their microphones are almost always cut immediately after their initial question with follow-up questions rarely allowed in these briefings thus that is severely limiting their ability to rigorously question ministers and officials.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree that should have quarantined people coming into the country earlier, biut I think it has been mentioned particularly now by the airlines.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What he actually said was
So just an opinion, not fact.


Isnt hindsight wonderful. :)
What do you think the reaction would have been if we had imposed lockdown or quarantine in February ?


Well it seems a whole bunch of people have decided to test it out for us, and gather in large groups [to protest]. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m fairly sure there’ll be posts here that said it before we actually entered lockdown.

I can certainly find my own posts as early as 13th March.


Edit : One more dig at the site or team and you will be removed from posting again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This isn't hindsight, I said it at the time. Thing is, there isn't any particular reason there had to be a complete lock down. If the numbers had been able to be kept low we could have functions with track and trace and maybe some social distancing.

We are an island, we have a natural quarantine barrier.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I doubt very much you got removed for condemning herd immunity.

More like got removed for the way you condemned it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, however the fact remains that far from invoking hindsight now posters here and elsewhere were questioning Government policy at the time making the case that lockdown was inevitable. It stands to reason that sooner results in less infections. Countries like New Zealand will now benefit from such a policy in both health and economic terms.

Same with quarantining, or at minimum screening, international arrivals. A policy the Government will now belatedly invoke.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And yet in an interview on 13 March he advocated herd immunity..........

LINK :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

He's going to be good fun at the public inquiry. I like the fact he struggles to look into the camera. A man with inner demons I suspect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So it is just an opinion to say that an earlier lockdown would have saved lives? What planet are you on?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you have a comprehension problem. :dozey:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Saved lives or delayed deaths? We will know in time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The excess deaths figures won't lie in the long run.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The figures on https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashb...23467b48e9ecf6 did not update yesterday. No new cases or deaths or an admin error?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or a Sunday?

Re: Coronavirus
 

In conjunction with Taf's linked site I also use the Worldmeters site to see the figures each day.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Re: Coronavirus
 

New Zealand ends all restrictions except overseas arrivals having reduced the number of infections to zero.

Their PM sensibly warns to not be complacent and remain vigilant - there will be more cases.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wonder when their delayed deaths will happen?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably 13 hours

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nah, they probably happened 11 hours ago...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Popped in work for the "meeting", I am at risk of redudancy, as not only the work load plumeted, but the manuals in my department being thinned down, and it has been deemed a part time job.

I said the the top man that I was willing to drop my hours, he made a note of that.

I need to go back next monday to find out my fate.

-------

On top of that my sister has been furloughed until July.

Re: Coronavirus
 

or in the future?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is possible the virus has died out in New Zealand as there have been no new cases for 17 days.

Luckily for New Zealand it was easier for them having a population of less than 5 million spread over 2 islands.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They took the "right steps, at the right time, following the science" some might say. And are going to reap the rewards in their economic recovery.

It had little to do with luck - a tiny island state like ours demonstrates the outcomes of bad decision making a route that New Zealand could easily have followed but they dismissed herd immunity off the bat.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Less than 5 million spread over 2 islands vs more than 66 million spread over 1.25 islands. Of course there's no difference.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Also, 5 million tourist arrivals per year, compared to 40 million. And that’s just tourists, not returning nationals or other visitor types. Jacinda Arden is not a miracle worker. She had a good hand that was easily played.

There appears to be an almost pathological need amongst some to characterise every decision of the U.K. gov as necessarily and always wrong, which I’m quite certain has nothing to do with Covid-19 and everything to do with the individual in No.10 and his party affiliation.

There will be a public enquiry once this is over and done with, and doubtless it will identify errors, but I’m sure what it won’t do is draw crass and deliberately misleading parallels with very small countries in isolated corners of the Pacific ocean.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody had routine testing. Even South Korea was concentrating on testing those with symptoms and brought to their attention. SAME AS THE UK. Even WHO advice has CHANGED over time and with the increased knowledge.



Look at a map of the world. South Korea has North Korea to the north, China to the west, and Japan to the east. How many people would be travelling to/from those countries. The UK not only has visitors, but truck drivers etc, travelling around Europe. The UK had people coming in or returning, from all over the world(8m of them), including China. Most of them wouldn't have had detectable symptoms, not even a high temperature. How many other countries implemented the same regime as in South Korea. If the answer is most or even many(which it's not), then you might have a point. COVID-19 has features well beyond any previous pandemic experience. It is that that has caused the problems, even in South Korea.
30th Jan 2020.

Over 80% not detectable.

As the case in Daegu, South Korea showed, just one infected person can be responsible for a huge number of infections before anybody notices. The city of 2.5m million went into voluntary lockdown. Now if instead you have 10 infected people bringing it into 10 UK cities, you should be able to see the difference that would bring in numbers, BEFORE there was anything noticeable going on. That ONE person triggered 61% of their cases.:shocked: That's how much damage one undetectable person can cause.



The UK Blood Transfusion service identified that around 1.5% of Londoners

had been infected by early March, again before anything was noticeable. The tests were from the week of 23rd March, but the infection would've started 2 weeks earlier.


If you have to base planning everything on the most extreme of what might happen, where does it all end? Lockdown would have to be more severe and never-ending.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nomadking you are going round in circles. Nobody, anywhere in the world, has claimed airport screening to be 100% effective. Screening in South Korea was also done at transport hubs, creating more opportunities to intervene, earlier, to defeat the virus.

It'd be great if it was, however that doesn't mean it is not effective. Like face masks, it's simply part of the jig saw.

You've coped and pasted more points that have been addressed more times than I can count so will leave it there.

The statistics do not point towards cases of pure bad luck on our part.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Musings

Things that the government deserve credit for.

Implementing lockdown. (the timing however is debatable)
The furlough scheme.
The building of the nighthinggales

I"m genuinely struggling to think of others

Things the government should be held to account and challenged/owes the population a genuine explanation on

Abandoning the testing regime
The failure to force international arrivals to quarantine earlier.
The absolute debacle that has become track and trace
The third highest death rate in the world.
Lifting lockdown too early.


Whilst I don't like Boris one bit, I was quite impressed with the way he initially dealt with the situation. He does however now look like he has no long term plan, and is ignoring the science

Re: Coronavirus
 

Crikey :shocked:

I wonder how many infected people gave blood earlier in the year, and which hospitals that blood was used in?

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-cam...id-19-updates/ https://my.blood.co.uk/KnowledgeBase...us%20infection

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

A good list and I believe people have given credit to the Government for those areas it has performed well in.

To this I would add:

Credit:
- Slogan: Stay home -protect the NHS - save lives was good
- Other business support eg rates relief, loans, deferral of VAT payments
- Regular communication
- Funding of public transport (buses, trams, trains) to compensate for loss of fare income

Debit:
- Procurement of ventilators with inexperienced providers outside he sector
- Cummingsgate which gave some people the excuse to reduce their adherence to the rules
- Turkish PPE fiasco, a propaganda exercise that failed to deliver
- Fudging the testing stats
- Requiring in-person votes in House of Commons

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, can add those

Lets add 'Stay Alert, Control the virus....' to the debit column as it caused confusion

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I should imagine it's the time between taking the blood, testing it, and releasing it for use, that kills off the virus. It needs suitable tissue to infect, to prolong it's life beyond a few days.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, it's exactly what it says - there is no evidence of coronavirus transmission through blood. Can we say categorically that there is minimal risk? No, not without a controlled study which is going to be difficult (who is up for a blood donation from a COVID 19 positive patient?) We have to wait for evidence to accumulate before we can anything.

I have done a quick search myself for evidence and there are a couple of nice papers;

Coronavirus Disease 2019: Coronaviruses and Blood Safety -this discusses what is seen in general related to coronaviruses including SARS and MERS
COVID-19 transmission and blood transfusion: A case report - a report where a severely immunocompromised patient was given platelets from a donor who was subsequently diagnosed with COVID 19

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, they could say "We have tested extensively and no evidence has been found". There is no evidence doesn't imply they even looked.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In countries that actually do test, trace, isolate would there not be a chance of them identifying this as a potential source?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You might like to check out the first link I posted (this one) It's a bit dated, being published in February but was indicative of the state of knowledge at that time - viral RNA is seen in blood for coronavirus infections but there is no evidence of transmission through blood for SARS and MERS. So RNA yes, virus no in blood.

The second paper described a 'worst case' where the worst possible type of patient was given platelets from an infected donor and nothing happened. However, a sample size of one does not make evidence.

Evidence will come from track and trace - where did that patient get infected? If all human sources are excluded except the fact that the patient received blood or blood products, there's the evidence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, scientific speak isn't always clear. 'No evidence' doesn't necessarily mean 'we don't know' it usually means 'we haven't seen'.

When you see 'opportunity for further study' that really means 'we don't know' or, at best, 'god knows what those results mean' :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

In fact this is exactly what China told the WHO in January. "There is no evidence the coronovirus has human to human transmission".

Now it is entirely possible there could be a disease that can pass from human to human but does so so rarely that it goes unnoticed by testing. But we can all see that CoVid passes easily, so either they never actually looked or they just lied.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is also a opposite need amongst some to apologise for the Government at all and every opportunity. No decision even one clearly resulting in the deaths of thousands should be questioned at a point when further decisions made by the same people and the same process could lead to even more deaths. A need I am sure has more to do with a political alignment to current Government than a need to establish an objective understanding of the facts.

'Wait until all the decisions, good and bad, have been made and only then ask if they were the right decisions at the time" - better still, question the decisions as they are being made and make sure that you have the best people in charge of the decision making process when the next big decision needs to be made.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well the much criticised herd immunity plan was designed to save the most lives in the long run if certain assumptions about the virus held.

The worst decision has been the care home ordeal, but this has been largely consistent with other nations and may have been simply the result of there being no alternatives, but I have no insight in carehome organisation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’d also be much easier to be complementary about the Government if they had actually been seen to take appropriate actions at the right time. We were told we were “two weeks behind Italy” yet no effort seemed to be made to learn from this - instead we ran the risk that we’d be different and unsurprisingly we were not.

I’ve been hugely complimentary about the furlough scheme, abandoning herd immunity and now quarantining arrivals. Now if we got a decent test, trace, isolate scheme on the go we might get to where we should have been in early April.

There’s one side of this debate lacking objectivity and it’s those that can’t accept there’s any error at all. Something that would be beyond parody in North Korea given the death/infection count.

I used to think folk viewed politics too much like supporting a football team, but even supporters of football teams are objective enough to see when their own team plays badly.

What people don’t seem to appreciate is that until we get these things right we are going to be stuck in some varying degree of lockdown/economic restrictions and social distancing and huge sections of the economy either closed or not commercially viable.

Instead some appear to be getting bogged down that this is down to pure chance, measures that aren’t 100% aren’t effective or that the virus simply will go away by itself. This is the same guesswork as “it’s just the flu”; “cultural differences”; “multigenerational households”; “the virus will die out in the summer”.

Unfortunately for some their ideology is against the state doing anything - even if it is co-ordinating a national effort to stem a pandemic and protect the economy. Something the private sector simply couldn’t do because there is no profit in it. In times of global crisis you’d think it’d be important to have perspective on these things.

There’s no return to normal because the Government eases restrictions. People need to be confident that they can go about their day to day lives and we won’t have a second wave. Otherwise those on furlough now will be saving “just in case”, those concerned about the health risk will stay home more. All of this affects economic demand. That means people need to be confident that the prevalence of the virus is low, people who catch it are quickly identified, isolated and then their contacts isolated and tested quickly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

YouGov has asked people to assess how their governments have handled the Crisis.
The UK is sadly in last place, a position it shares with Mexico.

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1269931042728796161

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/internat...article_8_june

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's right, in the long run we can compare the number of deaths here with those of other countries.

And when I say 'compare', I mean on a like for like basis. When Spain and Italy provide their figures on the number of deaths, it appears they are not including deaths in care homes and in the community. So, no wonder our figures look bad in comparison.

---------- Post added at 19:07 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------

Social distancing in NZ is quite easy between farms! Their relatively low population levels make controls on the virus a lot easier than over here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the challenge with care homes is that they are many and diverse, from small groups of care homes to large organisations, as well as local council provision.

They have various funding levels and organisational maturity - the home my mum-in-law is in (part of an organisation of 56 care homes and 4 independent living centres) is well-funded* and well managed (they had a winter influenza plan which they adapted for COVID-19), had plentiful stocks of PPE, and are very well-staffed (and the staff are experienced and motivated (well, all the ones I have met are)) - not all care homes are this fortunate or well-managed.

*fees are over £1k per week

---------- Post added at 19:15 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

Not been to Auckland (1.6 million) or Wellington (400k), then?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Compare the number of larger population centres in NZ with the number of cities and large towns in the UK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hang on I thought you were in the “they were all dying anyway” camp - excess deaths will be zero over say, the next 12 months? Or have you abandoned that one too.

Do Italy have as many in care homes I thought they were all multigenerational households?

Or is it simply the case you are moving the goalposts (once again) to avoid facing up to the inevitable.

Ah, back to things being too hard for us, the fifth richest country in the world.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

The thing is with an effective test, trace, isolate system in place this isn’t particularly relevant. You’ve got more resource to throw at it in “richer” countries. The same principle applies.

South Korea and Singapore have higher population densities than the UK, but I’m sure you’ll roll out another excuse.

The measures we needed to prevent the first wave are also those we need to prevent the second to save lives and protect the economy. We appear to be getting there but the testing and contact tracing has to improve to drive public confidence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know, I worked there - but there a number of large population centres as well.

FYI, according to the 2018 census, the agricuture, forestry and fishing industry and associated support services employed 143,127 people out of 4.9 million (just under 3% of the population, or just under 6% of the working population).

78% of NZ live in urban areas of over 10,000 population.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wealth has nothing to do with it, the UK and NZ are not alike, at all, so comparing them is just nonsense, you know that of course, but you just cant help arguing.

Much like you roll out the same response every time, South Korea [or insert country here] did better than us at something [or insert whatever here].

You just go around in constant argumentative circles - often that someone did better than the UK at something, and/all everything is the governments fault (as you clearly dont like them) ... blah blah blah. You're like a teacher that tells the successful scientist they are a complete failure because John Doe scored higher marks than them on the English Test, and Jane Doe scored higher marks in Art.

No one is best at everything.
If you hate the UK and its government so much, why not emigrate to South Korea.
With all the praise you lavish on them, I think they would welcome you with open arms.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wahey, state sponsored booze up in Malta;

Link

Couldn't happen here, something about events in breweries and the government comes to mind...

Re: Coronavirus
 

It would be nice, but again, Malta is a small island.
Its total population is just under 500,000, of which about 365,000 are adults - its not quite the same as trying to do it for 50 million or so in the UK. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s not my fault they (South Korea) set the standard.

Far from hating this Government I want it to get this right - that results in less deaths and a quicker economic recovery (and in the long run better polling results). It allows them to concentrate on more important things - like Brexit and negotiating better international trade deals - which comes from us being in a better economic position.

It’s not my views being skewed from whether or not I voted for this Government or not - it’s others on the forum. Boris delivered Brexit, therefore can do no wrong.

Do we all agree we want them to get this right? Economic recovery? Less deaths? Pubs open? If so, I fail to see what the argument is actually about. We need to learn what went wrong, and what to fix going forward. That means looking elsewhere. Shrugging our shoulders and saying it’s too hard to test, trace, isolate cases results in months, if not years, of economic turmoil and more deaths. I think regardless of whether you voted Conservative, Labour, Leave or Remain that’s an undesirable outcome.

If people genuinely believe nothing has gone wrong to date then fundamentally that’s accepting herd immunity. With us about a quarter of the way there at a cost of 40,000 deaths then they’re ultimately accepting 160,000 deaths and years of an economic slump is a price worth paying rather than funding a world leading response to the virus. I don’t know on what planet that makes sense.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The issue with the care home situation is what were they supposed to do. Not every person that has/ had CV Needs to be hospitalised. You can’t have people that don’t need to be in hospital, in hospital. So where do you send them?

The mistake was not in sending them back to the care homes, but not having a plan in place to manage it, and of course the PPE.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, its the 'fault' of SARS.
They got badly stung by it last time, so were better prepared (than pretty much everyone) this time.

That does not mean they got everything perfect however.
I'm certain that every country in the world could have done better (including SK), and all wish they had.
I'm equally sure most will review all the events over time, with a view to being better prepared in the future.

Yes we do, but constantly pointing fingers isn't going to fix anything.
Getting it right is not some simple "do this, then this, then this" and we'll all be ok.
It's complex, and almost completely unknown territory, no one is going to 'get it right' all the time.

I dont know a single person who believes "nothing has gone wrong to date".
The only permanent solution, of course, is immunity, however we actually get there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've never said South Korea got everything perfect.

I've been consistent throughout this thread since before lockdown. We needed to at minimum screen at airports, a lockdown was inevitable (even as others said it'd be too costly) and we need to identify where cases are. This is as true today as it was in March.

Others in the thread have moved the goalposts I can confidently say 100% I haven't and that I've never let who I voted for, or how I voted in in the Brexit referendum, influence my stance. The best health outcome, based on best practice. Health and economics are one and the same now.

In any other field, if it had nothing to do with politics, we would all look to see who performed better and how to emulate it. Equally what could have gone better should the same series of events happen again. None of that would be particularly exceptional in any other field.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think we'll be compared to France, Italy, Spain and Germany.

We're not Asia so I think it's to be expected that we'll do worse than them given their previous experience with it. I don't see any reason why we should be amongst the worst, if not the worst, though. We actually had a head-start on Italy and France in preparing for it as well.

We'll see what the inquiry says in time. I suspect it will focus on the preparation before the virus arrived and the timing of the lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not just government but population too.

If you have a population that will obey the rules completely regardless the government may have an easier job that a population who obey when it's novel but get bored quickly then start "rebelling".

Re: Coronavirus
 

They have always been updated every day. Also, the figures shown yesterday were LOWER than the previous day. :confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Excellent news that the schools aren't going back fully before September and the recognition by the Government that it's fundamentally too dangerous at a precarious point in easing lockdown restrictions.

Again I'm being consistent with my view on it - credit where credit is due.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apparently, Pip was wrong and we can claim from the EU to help pay for the coronavirus (but we are being asked to pay into the fund too, so it may not be worth participating).

Johnson appears to think this way and it's further complicating the withdrawal negotiations regarding trade talks:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12...aYZESF695Fqo1M

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not sure if there's a link between how countries have managed the crisis and how their residents think they have. But from the countries you mentioned:
Germany 46
Italy 36
Spain -4
France -12
UK -15
I'm surprised by the strong rating Italy got and by the low rating France got. I wouldn't have placed the UK last in the surveyed world though.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1269931042728796161

Re: Coronavirus
 

Infuriating news that schools aren't going back. Bad for the parents, bad for the kids. Really bad for kids that live in violent and abusive homes.

My youngest is in FR so I'm not concerned about him, my eldest is in Y4, as soon as he can he'll go back to his tutor over summer, so will hopefully catch - but not everyone can afford a tutor and they will have missed over half the school year and will now needlessly miss a at least a months schooling.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's the unions dictating stupid terms for teachers returning to work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you just want the kids out of your hair ! ;) Maybe its good news for any grandparents asymptomatic kids might pass the virus on to...

It would make more sense to start the summer holidays now and restart schools in August. But that requires a little imagination from all concerned.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I understand it'll be personally frustrating, but the Government correctly can't be seen to take unnecessary risks with the R number close to 1 in so many regions and many schools unable to fully implement physical distancing.

Those in abusive and violent homes have been in them since March, and remain in them over the relatively imminent summer holidays. I'd be first in the queue to suggest we more adequately fund social services and deal with these families with the full force of the law. However an additional eight hours a day, for four weeks Monday to Friday, is a negligible risk and one that it's unfortunately necessary to take against the backdrop of an uncontrolled pandemic.

Now if we had a fully operational and reliable test, trace and isolate system we could mitigate the risk of the pandemic. It's vital that this is in place for September.

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:03 ----------

It doesn't make sense if you want to use the time in August to try out easing other lockdown restrictions or evaluate existing ones.

The country are, falsely, are under the illusion that the indicative dates are fixed or that this is a one way street. This isn't helped by the barrage of idiot questions from the media who ask the most irrelevant questions on timing - pubs opening, holidays abroad, etc. and set additional arbitrary and unnecessary "targets" in an increasingly fluid situation.

It's not failure for the Government to push something back a few weeks, or reverse a change, if the data suggests we need more time to evaluate what is happening on the ground. Given the time someone can experience onset of symptoms from infection can be around two weeks it can take 3-4 weeks to fully evaluate changes. Which makes changes in that period inherently riskier than waiting.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe the schools will run some Summer classes in August? I suspect most families won't be going very far this Summer!
According to the Government today, having all primary schools was an aspiration, not a firm target.
I think the problem here was that the Government went in all guns blazing to the schools saying just do it. They pushed back citing capacity issues if safe-distancing. The Government did not believe them at first but has now come round.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The issue was parents, and media induced paranoia.
Most just didnt send them, so its pointless many being open.
My wife works at one, and barely 15 out over over 100 are in atm.
I'm sure half of them think their kid will die if they go back to school. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

This will be a challenge for non-essential retail, hospitality and other small businesses going forward. Even if a small minority of customers - 5 or 10% - aren't confident enough to go out and purchase then that's profit margins significantly reduced.

People need to be confident they can go about their day to day lives and have a low risk from the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ha, well all I can say is Labour run Calderdale Council are a joke.

Two weeks ago when the Govt said to open schools - the LA told schools not to open.

Now when the Govt have said don't open schools (or don't if you don't want to) they are now saying open the schools.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy about it, and at least one of kids will be going to school Monday.

But it shows that the councils decision not to allow schools to open on the 1st was pure politics at play.

They said then that only 2 of of the 5 tests had been met, now they're saying ALL five have been met. When nothing has changed since the end of May, in fact in some places R has gone up.

Anyway time to get the school uniform out the box.

Re: Coronavirus
 

With an independent group of scientists today stating that the UK government’s test and trace strategy is “not fit for purpose” the travails of the UK's app solution continue.
https://www.ft.com/content/5ba7dc0a-...4-e12dcf9ed286