Coronavirus (OLD)

[jonbxx]

It's very easy to be absolutist about this whole issue. The whole argument about how locked down we are and where we are going in the short and longer term is all about management of risk. The level of risk associated with different activities is very much a science question and that still isn't 100% clear. We are learning all the time and taking lessons from previous diseases. It's all about balances of probabilities.

Once we have an idea of risk, then we get to the social sciences and risk management. This is either a personal choice or one decided for us by governments. Some times these are in conflict, we have all seen people driving without seat belts or using phones. The government says that is risky, but humans decide otherwise and here we are.

It's quite clear in this forum that the perceived risk is different from person to person. How much risk of contracting COVID are you willing to take? Would dropping the risk by 50% work, 90% or 100%?

I think the government has done a reasonable job so far at advising us on the risk. They have maybe been not so good at their own risk mitigation, especially in terms of timeliness (lockdown, PPE procurement, test procurement for example)

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

What if that number is greater than the number of those who wan't protecting,shouldn't they all just stay at home hiding until they think it's safe to come out. while the majority get on with life.

And, how long do you think that would last for before businesses were unable to cope with employees being on the sick, huge rises on the amount of people requiring hospitalisation and potential ICU care. The country would be in an even worse state than it is now.

[denphone]

Some thoughts by James Forsyth of The Spectator.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...wont-be-smooth

Originally Posted by denphone

Some thoughts by James Forsyth of The Spectator.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...wont-be-smooth

Good find/article.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Good find/article.

It was a well structured article that considered a wide range of important issues. One of my take-aways is this:

Even before coronavirus, this government’s agenda was large and ambitious — some would have said unfeasibly so. It is now even greater. It wants to respond to coronavirus by creating an entire new public health infrastructure, one that can ensure that the UK is never again caught out in the way it has been by this virus. Its aim would be to make sure that in any future pandemic, the UK can deploy a South Korean response from the off, leading to far fewer deaths. Creating this infrastructure will be expensive. But given that Covid is the third coronavirus crisis since the turn of the century (Sars and Mers being the other two) and given the catastrophic costs of the current nationwide lockdown, it’s sensible to insure against a fourth.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Good find/article.

Most definitely.

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It was a well structured article that considered a wide range of important issues. One of my take-aways is this:

Even before coronavirus, this government’s agenda was large and ambitious — some would have said unfeasibly so. It is now even greater. It wants to respond to coronavirus by creating an entire new public health infrastructure, one that can ensure that the UK is never again caught out in the way it has been by this virus. Its aim would be to make sure that in any future pandemic, the UK can deploy a South Korean response from the off, leading to far fewer deaths. Creating this infrastructure will be expensive. But given that Covid is the third coronavirus crisis since the turn of the century (Sars and Mers being the other two) and given the catastrophic costs of the current nationwide lockdown, it’s sensible to insure against a fourth.

A entire new public health infrastructure is something that l hope does come to fruition for the reasons written in the article as this country cannot afford to get into a position like this again.

There is an opportunity here for wholesale reform not seen since 1945. The possibilities are exciting but the stakes are high.

[pip08456]

No need to worry any more. Trump has it in hand.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1255611768258387973

Originally Posted by pip08456

No need to worry any more. Trump has it in hand.

It’s gonna go,
It’s gonna leave
It’s gonna be gone
It’s gonna be eradiCATED

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52493500

PM Boris Johnson said he will set out a "comprehensive plan" next week on how to restart the economy, reopen schools and help people travel to work following the coronavirus lockdown.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It was a well structured article that considered a wide range of important issues. One of my take-aways is this:

Even before coronavirus, this government’s agenda was large and ambitious — some would have said unfeasibly so. It is now even greater. It wants to respond to coronavirus by creating an entire new public health infrastructure, one that can ensure that the UK is never again caught out in the way it has been by this virus. Its aim would be to make sure that in any future pandemic, the UK can deploy a South Korean response from the off, leading to far fewer deaths. Creating this infrastructure will be expensive. But given that Covid is the third coronavirus crisis since the turn of the century (Sars and Mers being the other two) and given the catastrophic costs of the current nationwide lockdown, it’s sensible to insure against a fourth.

Originally Posted by Chris

There is an opportunity here for wholesale reform not seen since 1945. The possibilities are exciting but the stakes are high.

One of the reasons South Korea was good at dealing with the virus will be because they've experienced it before. The Government had the infrastructure to help and importantly the public reacted with the seriousness it deserved. I imagine the same will be true here too. Nothing helps like first hand experience. Hopefully it's the kind of thing that can have some flex to it as well, be more generic, to avoid a 'fighting the last war scenario'.

Other than healthcare and pandemic response though I think the amount of people expecting a different society to emerge will be disappointed. I believe that the public desire for normality will be so strong and the Government so pre-occupied with economic recovery alongside Brexit and the aforementioned healthcare reforms that anything that can continue in the same vein will do so.

I am seeing a lot of talk of how society's relationship with work, each commerce and with each other will change and we'll all take the time to understand what's important and what isn't. Nah, most people will just want to go back to the pub.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

Some thoughts by James Forsyth of The Spectator.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...wont-be-smooth

Really enjoyed reading that, thanks for sharing the link.

[newapollo]

Final totals, what a splendid fundraiser.

Total raised £32,794,071.50
+ £6,173,301.98 Gift Aid
Grand Total £38,967,373.48

[Russ]

Originally Posted by denphone

Some thoughts by James Forsyth of The Spectator.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...wont-be-smooth

This was what I found most worrying:

For instance, if a US firm were to come up with a coronavirus vaccine, President Donald Trump could — under the Defense Production Act — stop it from being exported until there were sufficient doses for America’s own needs.

IMO this is exactly what he would do and sums up why he's so dangerous. Oxford seems to be doing well with developing a vaccine/treatment, I really hope they beat America to it.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Russ

This was what I found most worrying:



IMO this is exactly what he would do and sums up why he's so dangerous. Oxford seems to be doing well with developing a vaccine/treatment, I really hope they beat America to it.

Yes l read that and that is why we should build a entire new public health infrastructure which makes us less reliant on leaders like that.

l never agreed with Brexit but if there is hopefully one good thing to come out of it is a great realisation as a sovereign nation that we must build our own futureproof infrastructure from from the ground up so we don't get into the position that we are currently in.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Russ

This was what I found most worrying:



IMO this is exactly what he would do and sums up why he's so dangerous. Oxford seems to be doing well with developing a vaccine/treatment, I really hope they beat America to it.

So then you'd be quite happy if Oxford exported any vaccine/treatment before treating UK citizens? If not which UK citizens get treated before the vaccine/treatment is exported?