Slow news day? The real deal? End of the world? 
 

They’re saying it probably came from an animal, has Somebody been shagging monkeys again? 

15 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

I think the only way you can eliminate it now is for everyone (or most people) to get it 

That’s either a vaccine or failing that everyone getting it 

I think we’ve taken the ‘zero risk’ approach as far as we can (back in Spring), it’s not a viable economic option 

It wasn't a viable economic option because it wasn't done early enough. Lock down late, lock down longer. 

We never adopted a "zero risk" approach (masks didn't become mandatory until at least two months into "lockdown", for example). We locked down to prevent the healthcare services becoming overwhelmed, not to eliminate.

Just now, peelyfeet said:

the date is irrelevant - we could have tried the same by extending the intial lockdown for a bit longer, but we didn't beacause we prioritised short term economic gain, and now its bitten us in the bum.   

We did try the same, we tried to track and trace through January to March so we could nip it in the bud. We failed and Admitted defeat early in March when community transmission was widespread 

If you want to follow the Taiwan model then I’m with you, it was business as usual, they didn’t fuck their economy up. We left it too late and had to fuck up large swathes of ours in order to limit the damage 

2 minutes ago, Ani said:

Fair enough. 

On Sweden given infection leads to hospital that leads to death. Why would infection rate in one country not  be in proportion to death rate ? Unless one country has better treatment than others. 

There's growing evidence that Vitmain D can help to prevent symptoms becoming severe. I read that Sweden has the highest levels of Vitamin D amongst its population then any other European country. It wouldn't surprise me if that's had an effect.

3 minutes ago, Ani said:

Fair enough. 

On Sweden given infection leads to hospital that leads to death. Why would infection rate in one country not  be in proportion to death rate ? Unless one country has better treatment than others. 

I assume every country will be different for thousands of reasons 

However, If a country is successful in shielding the vulnerable then total cases - hospitalisations - deaths would look very different to a country that fails to shield the vulnerable 

2 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

We did try the same, we tried to track and trace through January to March so we could nip it in the bud. We failed and Admitted defeat early in March when community transmission was widespread 

If you want to follow the Taiwan model then I’m with you, it was business as usual, they didn’t fuck their economy up. We left it too late and had to fuck up large swathes of ours in order to limit the damage 

I just think we could have tried again in summer, I cant understand why we came out of lockdown in the north at the same time as london when they were weeks ahead, it was a bonkers decision.

anyway time will tell - this is a good piece on Sweden

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surreal-critics-sweden-s-lax-pandemic-policies-face-fierce-backlash

9 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

I just think we could have tried again in summer, I cant understand why we came out of lockdown in the north at the same time as london when they were weeks ahead, it was a bonkers decision.

anyway time will tell - this is a good piece on Sweden

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surreal-critics-sweden-s-lax-pandemic-policies-face-fierce-backlash

Interesting 

Part of it is about face coverings, let’s not forget the WHO and majority of governments all came out against face coverings for the same reason early on so Sweden wasn’t alone (although they haven’t since changed) 

If your trying to gauge success then you need to decide what the measure is. If it’s purely about excess deaths then you’ll have to wait about 10 years I’d say. Our approach of fucking the economy to reduce excess deaths in the short term will lead to NHS cuts and more excess deaths in the medium / longer term 

If the measure of excess also includes economic performance then you could make a case for Sweden’s approach working already, their economy has fared much better than ours 

Edited October 17, 20205 yr by birch-chorley

14 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

I assume every country will be different for thousands of reasons 

However, If a country is successful in shielding the vulnerable then total cases - hospitalisations - deaths would look very different to a country that fails to shield the vulnerable 

Weren't a huge amount of Swden's deaths - just like ours - in care homes?

On another note Peely, how come your ok with us having different restrictions based on Geography or I distrust but you don’t think we should have different restrictions based on vulnerability? 

last week you said it’s unfair to ask the vulnerable groups to shield when others don’t have to. Yet below your advocating the North having to abide to different restrictions to the South? 

i’d have thought your either one set of rules for all or not. Personally I think it’s right to be more targeted, including different restrictions for the ones most likely to need hospital treatment 

11 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

I just think we could have tried again in summer, I cant understand why we came out of lockdown in the north at the same time as london when they were weeks ahead, it was a bonkers decision.

anyway time will tell - this is a good piece on Sweden

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surreal-critics-sweden-s-lax-pandemic-policies-face-fierce-backlash

2 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Weren't a huge amount of Swden's deaths - just like ours - in care homes?

Do t have a clue 

Was just responding to Ani who seemed to be implying that the shape of cases to Hospitalisation to deaths should be the same for all countries 

I was making the point that surely they would be different for all countries for many reasons....

Age profile of country (look at Africa), vitamin D levels, ability to shield vulnerable, population density, general economic activity (service sector vs manufacturing etc)

the list goes on but surely each country will have a slightly different shape 

11 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

On another note Peely, how come your ok with us having different restrictions based on Geography or I distrust but you don’t think we should have different restrictions based on vulnerability? 

last week you said it’s unfair to ask the vulnerable groups to shield when others don’t have to. Yet below your advocating the North having to abide to different restrictions to the South? 

i’d have thought your either one set of rules for all or not. Personally I think it’s right to be more targeted, including different restrictions for the ones most likely to need hospital treatment 

Because I don't think it works well. Theres too many vulnerable and its very difficult to stop them bumping into non vulnerable. Its a third of the population and they interact with non vulnerables. Youd have to impose the same restrictions on those who come into contact with non vulnerables. Theres 350k new cancer patients in the UK every year, for example, what do you say to all the people who live with them?

If you tell Northerners its illegal to travel out of their zone, that protects the other areas.

 

Edited October 17, 20205 yr by peelyfeet

1 minute ago, birch-chorley said:

Do t have a clue 

Was just responding to Ani who seemed to be implying that the shape of cases to Hospitalisation to deaths should be the same for all countries 

I was making the point that surely they would be different for all countries for many reasons....

Age profile of country (look at Africa), vitamin D levels, ability to shield vulnerable, population density, general economic activity (service sector vs manufacturing etc)

the list goes on but surely each country will have a slightly different shape 

About half:

https://www.france24.com/en/20200916-they-sacrificed-the-elderly-how-covid-19-spread-in-sweden-s-care-homes

So it's not just a matter of them protecting the vulnerable because I think in any country the knowingly vulnerable do what they can protect themselves anyway.

 

12 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

Because I don't think it works well. Theres too many vulnerable and its very difficult to stop them bumping into non vulnerable. Its a third of the population and they interact with non vulnerables. Youd have to impose the same restrictions on those who come into contact with non vulnerables. Theres 350k new cancer patients in the UK every year, for example, what do you say to all the people who live with them?

If you tell Northerners its illegal to travel out of their zone, that protects the other areas.

 

Your quick to point out reasons why you can’t restrict by age but seem to think doing so geographically is easy 

How many people rely on intersections with those from other areas? If you draw a simple north / south line then you have millions of people living close to that area that travel from one side to the other for work, food, look after family every day 

Whilst our economy is fucked and has lost a 20% of its value we still have 80% of an economy that relies of free movement of goods and people all over the country (delivery drivers, tradesmen etc) 

Its as hard to make geographical restrictions work as it is by vulnerability, however the common denominator for North and South is that it’s the Vulnerable who are at a significant risk of dying from Covid  

Edited October 17, 20205 yr by birch-chorley

14 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Do t have a clue 

Was just responding to Ani who seemed to be implying that the shape of cases to Hospitalisation to deaths should be the same for all countries 

I was making the point that surely they would be different for all countries for many reasons....

Age profile of country (look at Africa), vitamin D levels, ability to shield vulnerable, population density, general economic activity (service sector vs manufacturing etc)

the list goes on but surely each country will have a slightly different shape 

Say my wife gets breast cancer and has to have chemo. I've got 2 school age kids, one plays for bwfc, and a 75yr old dad that I help out in a support bubble,  and a business to run. What do my kids do, no school until vaccine or herd immunity, no football? Do I stop helping my dad. He lives on his own,  does he stay in his house for months? 

What about the nurse giving my wife chemo, does her familiy isolate too? It's not practical.

4 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Your quick to point out reasons why you can’t restrict by age but seem to think doing so geographically is easy 

How many people rely on intersections with those from other areas? If you draw a simple north / south line then you have millions of people living close to that area that travel from one side to the other for work, food, look after family every day 

Whilst our economy is fucked and has lost a 20% of its value we still have 80% of an economy that relies of free movement of goods and people all over the country (delivery drivers, tradesmen etc) 

Its as hard to make geographical restrictions work as it is by vulnerability, however the common denominator for North and South is that it’s the Vulnerable who are at a significant risk of dying from Covid  

Geography is easier because you can stop people from moving. I can't stop my kids breathing inside my house.

8 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

Geography is easier because you can stop people from moving. I can't stop my kids breathing inside my house.

Don't be daft, you stop people moving completely, even with a simple North / South divide and you’ve got absolute Chaos. Panic buying, Supermarket shelves running empty, millions more unable to get to work because of a road block - madness

As a rough example, I work in Tea, all major Tea manufacturing is located in the North so the South would run out in days. Plenty other examples in both directions. You can of course limit travel from one area to another though and that would be a benefit 

Likewise, you can’t fully shield the vulnerable, but you can take measures to limit the contact they have with the rest of the population, that would also be a benefit 

I’m all for a targeted approach, however we need to target based on vulnerability as much as we do geography 

Edited October 17, 20205 yr by birch-chorley

57 minutes ago, dave2980 said:

Having been as recently as last week I call bollocks

Which bit? I go about three times a year but mostly to lower populated areas so I guess Stockholm could be different.  Their national trait is very much compliant nature though.

2 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Don't be daft, you stop people moving completely, even with a simple North / South divide and you’ve got absolute Chaos. Panic buying, Supermarket shelves running empty, millions more unable to get to work because of a road block - madness

As a rough example, I work in Tea, all major Tea manufacturing is located in the North so the South would run out in days. Plenty other examples in both directions. You can of course limit travel from one area to another though and that would be a benefit 

Likewise, you can’t fully shield the vulnerable, but you can take measures to limit the contact they have with the rest of the population, that would also be a benefit 

I’m all for a targeted approach, however we need to target based on vulnerability as much as we do geography 

Tier 3 is already restricting movement

3 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Don't be daft, you stop people moving completely, even with a simple North / South divide and you’ve got absolute Chaos. Panic buying, Supermarket shelves running empty, millions more unable to get to work because of a road block - madness

As a rough example, I work in Tea, all major Tea manufacturing is located in the North so the South would run out in days. Plenty other examples in both directions. You can of course limit travel from one area to another though and that would be a benefit 

Likewise, you can’t fully shield the vulnerable, but you can take measures to limit the contact they have with the rest of the population, that would also be a benefit 

I’m all for a targeted approach, however we need to target based on vulnerability as much as we do geography 

What do we tell vulnerable people and those they live/work/care for or are cared by to do differently. I don't want a "shield them better answer", what practical things do we tell the millions of folk in the above category to do or not do from today?

Just now, peelyfeet said:

Tier 3 is already restricting movement

It is but it’s not fully restricted is it, no road blocks 

Tens of thousands are moving in and out of tier 3 areas each day, but it will help 

Likewise, shielding the vulnerable wouldn’t achieve an absolute bubble for all in that group, but it would help, so it should be part of the targeted approach that we are using 

I’d say it’s fair enough to ask the vulnerable groups to shield in tier 2 

So just had a look to see what availability there is for cottages/lodges/hotels in the Lakes over the next fortnight.

There is fuck all.

The place is going to be rammed.

Lockdown my codpiece

Just now, peelyfeet said:

What do we tell vulnerable people and those they live/work/care for or are cared by to do differently. I don't want a "shield them better answer", what practical things do we tell the millions of folk in the above category to do or not do from today?

I’d say we do exactly what we did in March, what was the advice to them then? 

We had an army of volunteers helping them shield in spring 

I’m not saying we should be doing anything that we haven’t done before 

1 hour ago, birch-chorley said:

We did try the same, we tried to track and trace through January to March so we could nip it in the bud. We failed and Admitted defeat early in March when community transmission was widespread 

If you want to follow the Taiwan model then I’m with you, it was business as usual, they didn’t fuck their economy up. We left it too late and had to fuck up large swathes of ours in order to limit the damage 

Did we? I honestly don't recall anything like that

10 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

Did we? I honestly don't recall anything like that

Yes 

Think the first guy who had it was from Brighton, think he was the one who had been in the Alps Skiing that helped kick off the Italy situation 

We made a fist of tracking and tracing it but we weren’t very good (much like other european countries with limited experience of this sort of thing) 

11 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

It is but it’s not fully restricted is it, no road blocks 

Tens of thousands are moving in and out of tier 3 areas each day, but it will help 

Likewise, shielding the vulnerable wouldn’t achieve an absolute bubble for all in that group, but it would help, so it should be part of the targeted approach that we are using 

I’d say it’s fair enough to ask the vulnerable groups to shield in tier 2 

I'm not saying shield the vulnerable doesn't help.

I'm saying shield the vulnerable and let the young crack on, doesn't work.

Sweden are arguably at 10% seropositivity after 7 months. Cracking on would take ages, the virus would be rife in the community so vulnerables would have to be isolated from contact, the country would still have a health issue. Some vulnerables would still catch it, under 60s still get ill, some still need hospitalisation, some die. The economy would still take a battering. Taking a 3rd of the population out of circulation for a long time, and letting a virus infect millions of folk has consequences. Its why nobody has done it, and every country is trying to delay spread, bu whichever method they think works best.

UK and USA and Sweden will not be seen as shining examples of how to do it. If it happens again I bet nobody copies them.

 

Meanwhile in Germany.

https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-berlin-court-suspends-bar-and-restaurant-curfew/a-55306096