Coronavirus (OLD)

Originally Posted by Damien

I insist on hugging everyone I see in a pub so you see the possible problem.

“Don't just embrace the crazy, sidle up next to it and lick its ear.”

- Jim Wright

[heero_yuy]

Well I went to the local for my normal pint or two and there were the usual regulars. People still going into the restaurant section for food.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am going to find some remote cottage in the Highlands and camp out there until this all blows over.

I know just the place to stay, you might get breakfast delivered in a hamper and access to Freesat

A little light relief.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by denphone

UK coronavirus cases reach 1,950 - up 407 in 24 hours.

Actual number to be more like 50,000, which would still be something like 0.08% of the population.

This is not the apocalypse. Everyone should just calm down, follow the advice and carry on.

[RichardCoulter]

There's lots of posts over the internet criticising Johnson for doing a U turn.

Is he simply moving onto the next stage of Herd Immunity, or is this indeed an admission that he got it wrong and he's changed course?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There's lots of posts over the internet criticising Johnson for doing a U turn.

Is he simply moving onto the next stage of Herd Immunity, or is this indeed an admission that he got it wrong and he's changed course?

That's a false dichotomy (in other words, there are more possible answers than the two you have offered).

The science of this has been explained on various news programmes throughout the day. Radio 4's World at One is a good place to start ... the first 15-20 minutes or so.

In essence, the strategy last week was to attempt a controlled burn through the population, in order to keep within NHS capacity but also to gain widespread immunity to SARS2 (the coronavirus causing coven-19). The progress of the infection generated a ton of new data over the weekend which was analysed at Imperial College London. This data suggested that under that strategy, critical/fatal infections could rise to 250,000 - far too high to sustain.

The strategy has now therefore changed to an increasingly aggressive containment effort. This does two things: first it sacrifices the drive for herd immunity, second it probably keeps the NHS within capacity. It also poses a serious risk: if the virus is still present in the population when restrictions ease, it will flare up again. We are probably therefore in this now for the very long haul.

The extreme long-term nature of the crisis we now face is the reason it was worth trying for herd immunity. I don't think it is fair to characterise this as 'Boris got it wrong' - there are always a range of options, weighted by available evidence. He would have 'got it wrong' by sticking to the same decision in the mount of changing weight of evidence. But he didn't.

Originally Posted by Chris

That's a false dichotomy (in other words, there are more possible answers than the two you have offered).

The science of this has been explained on various news programmes throughout the day. Radio 4's World at One is a good place to start ... the first 15-20 minutes or so.

In essence, the strategy last week was to attempt a controlled burn through the population, in order to keep within NHS capacity but also to gain widespread immunity to SARS2 (the coronavirus causing coven-19). The progress of the infection generated a ton of new data over the weekend which was analysed at Imperial College London. This data suggested that under that strategy, critical/fatal infections could rise to 250,000 - far too high to sustain.

The strategy has now therefore changed to an increasingly aggressive containment effort. This does two things: first it sacrifices the drive for herd immunity, second it probably keeps the NHS within capacity. It also poses a serious risk: if the virus is still present in the population when restrictions ease, it will flare up again. We are probably therefore in this now for the very long haul.

The extreme long-term nature of the crisis we now face is the reason it was worth trying for herd immunity. I don't think it is fair to characterise this as 'Boris got it wrong' - there are always a range of options, weighted by available evidence. He would have 'got it wrong' by sticking to the same decision in the mount of changing weight of evidence. But he didn't.

Not BJ's biggest fan, but totally agree with you on this one - he did the right thing by reviewing the changing information,and acting on it.

And on that note, here's the Emergency Coronavirus bill, drawn up after cross-party talks.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...s-bill-will-do

The bill enables action in 5 key areas:

increasing the available health and social care workforce – for example, by removing barriers to allow recently retired NHS staff and social workers to return to work (and in Scotland, in addition to retired people, allowing those who are on a career break or are social worker students to become temporary social workers)

easing the burden on frontline staff – by reducing the number of administrative tasks they have to perform, enabling local authorities to prioritise care for people with the most pressing needs, allowing key workers to perform more tasks remotely and with less paperwork, and taking the power to suspend individual port operations

containing and slowing the virus – by reducing unnecessary social contacts, for example through powers over events and gatherings, and strengthening the quarantine powers of police and immigration officers

managing the deceased with respect and dignity – by enabling the death management system to deal with increased demand for its services

supporting people – by allowing them to claim Statutory Sick Pay from day one, and by supporting the food industry to maintain supplies

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not BJ's biggest fan, but totally agree with you on this one - he did the right thing by reviewing the changing information,and acting on it.

And on that note, here's the latest Coronavirus bill.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...s-bill-will-do

l agree as this is not a time for party politics as this grave crisis and the consequences of it outweigh petty politics.

I do hope this lockdown thing doesn't last too long, they were right in trying to avoid it because we know that we can all only cope so long before it becomes intolerable.

[Pierre]

The bottom line is:

The most vulnerable remain the most vulnerable, that hasn’t changed.

Whether we have a flash ( as in Italy) or a slow burn ( like we are trying ) the same demographic are at risk and most likely to suffer fatalities.

The difference is the capability of the health care system to cope.

The rest of us will be ill for a couple of weeks.

If those at risk, and those looking after those at risk, follow the guidance and protect them, they will save lives.

The best thing to happen is for the fit under 70’s, to contract the infection have a rough fortnight and get back on with life.

Whilst the vulnerable are protected.

The best available models are saying that this week’s change of strategy should reduce deaths from 250,000 to 20,000. It was the evidence that the herd immunity strategy would cause that massive number that forced them to reassess. That’s just too high a number, even with herd immunity as the prize.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

The best available models are saying that this week’s change of strategy should reduce deaths from 250,000 to 20,000. It was the evidence that the herd immunity strategy would cause that massive number that forced them to reassess. That’s just too high a number, even with herd immunity as the prize.

It was a stupid, dangerous and reckless theory. But credit to those that make these decisions for realising it and changing tack quickly.

I wonder if we'll go into a rolling lockdown whereby people are encourged to go out again when the pressure on the NHS dips and then locked down again when it raises. The risk would be people not understanding why it's important I guess.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Damien

I wonder if we'll go into a rolling lockdown whereby people are encourged to go out again when the pressure on the NHS dips and then locked down again when it raises. The risk would be people not understanding why it's important I guess.

This is one of the scenarios in the imperial college paper. This will no doubt result in "Boris can't make his mind up!"

Baring some possible but unlikely scenarios we are going to be headed to herd immunity one way or another.