Coronavirus

[Mounts Kipper]

17 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

Sorry for late reply.

It was our government experts warning against locking down early, most others were warning us against locking down too late. 

I can't understand the logic. The longer you wait, the more get infected, the longer it takes to get the disease under control, which makes the lockdown longer.

I fully expect countries that have had less deaths than us will have shorter lockdown

The only advantage I can see is that more people will  be infected when the lockdown ends.

This with bells on it. An earlier lockdown only means when the lockdown ends means more deaths later, deaths are sadly inevitable and only the timing changes with lockdown until a vaccine is ready. 

Edited April 12, 2020 by Mounts Kipper

[Sweep]

3 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

and yes I know you can’t put a price on life 

 

You and I can't, but the government will be able to I'm sure.

[Escobarp]

2 minutes ago, Sweep said:

You and I can't, but the government will be able to I'm sure.

I’m not sure it’s that simple and I think you know that too 

we simply cannot just run the economy into the ground. The consequences of that for folk don’t bear thinking about they really don’t. 
 

 

[ErnestTurnip]

Was talking to one of my neighbours before and their gran has been diagnosed and is currently in a care home so they had been doing the wave through the window thing. When they visit or take her out there are normally summat like 28 residents and now there are only 12. They don't know the reasons for that but after what Kent White said the other day it makes you wonder just how bad it is in that sector.

[dave2980]

17 minutes ago, Casino said:

If we aren't going to wait for a vaccine and I don't think we can afford to, folk getting infected and folk dieing is going to be the story for a good while yet

The decision is going to be which groups to let loose to get infected

Sorry if it all sounds a bit Dominic cummings

And to be honest that is what quite frankly scares the shit out of me.

I'm nearly 40, overweight, love a drink and have smoked on and off for the last 20+ years (currently smoking like a chimney)

I live alone, so if I suddenly develop breathing difficulties I'm potentially screwed!

[London Wanderer]

1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Like where? You stated NZ and Finland. Proper hubs those. 

Germany, Australia, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Canada. All have had lots of people coming in and out and high density of populations in places.

You're right though- being a global transport hub makes you more vulnerable. Which poses the question why we weren't we far more cautious and prepare to be one of the worst hit? 

Even with all the other factors, there is still a pattern emerging. The countries that acted quickly, implemented mass testing and ensured that all of their frontline staff were all suitably equipped- appear to be seeing the lowest death rates. This isn't some pointless rant and it has got sod all to do with who's in power - plenty of politicians (from all sides) and scientists underestimated this.  I'm not trying to lay the blame- the purpose of this is to accept that mistakes were made so we can learn from them and prevent a second peak. 

Just seen Boris's wee speech. Heartfelt and honest to say the least. The buffoon may be no more. Being a glass half full kinda guy I'm hoping they treat the NHS much better over the next 10 years, regardless of our economic situation. 

Edited April 12, 2020 by London Wanderer

[Ani]

People keep talking as though shutting down 2 weeks earlier would have saved lives. When the reality is that it would have only delayed things sadly. 
The purpose of the Government action is to manage the numbers so the NHS could cope. 
Say we closed down 2 weeks ago we would now be coming out of it with infections etc dropping. If we then go back to ‘normal’ the infection would start growing again. There is plenty of talk about a second peak. Closing down too early would as I understand it just lead to a bigger second peak. The long term level of infection will not change as at some point the restrictions lift. What the Govt are trying to do us ensure as often as possible when someone gets serious infection there is an ICU bed. 
Have I got this wrong ?? 

 

Maybe the hope is that we will better prepared to test and monitor people down the line as so also manage the infection level down  ?? 

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by Ani

[Escobarp]

1 minute ago, Ani said:

People keep talking as though shutting down 2 weeks earlier would have saved lives. When the reality is that it would have only delayed things sadly. 
The purpose of the Government action is to manage the numbers so the NHS could cope. 
Say we closed down 2 weeks ago we would now be coming out of it with infections etc dropping. If we then go back to ‘normal’ the infection would start growing again. There is plenty of talk about a second peak. Closing down too early would as I understand it just lead to a bigger second peak. The long term level of infection will not change as at some point the restrictions lift. What the Govt are trying to do us ensure as often as possible when someone gets serious infection there is an ICU bed. 
Have I got this wrong ?? 
 

 

Pretty much spot on for me 

[Ani]

Just now, Escobarp said:

Pretty much spot on for me 

I have added an edit. Because agreeing with you worries me. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

4 hours ago, mickbrown said:

No scrutiny/criticism allowed chaps.
 

The Gang of Four have deemed we just have to accept what’s going on and get on with it. 

Condescension as ever. Scrutinise away; but get your facts correct and dispose of opinion in doing so.

That's what inquiries are for. That will come later.

[royal white]

14 minutes ago, dave2980 said:

And to be honest that is what quite frankly scares the shit out of me.

I'm nearly 40, overweight, love a drink and have smoked on and off for the last 20+ years (currently smoking like a chimney)

I live alone, so if I suddenly develop breathing difficulties I'm potentially screwed!

It’s never to late to make changes 

[London Wanderer]

12 minutes ago, dave2980 said:

And to be honest that is what quite frankly scares the shit out of me.

I'm nearly 40, overweight, love a drink and have smoked on and off for the last 20+ years (currently smoking like a chimney)

I live alone, so if I suddenly develop breathing difficulties I'm potentially screwed!

Sounds like a tough situation pal. I'm an ex smoker and the worry just brings back the cravings. Hard not to go back into these routines. 

Stay safe. 

[Escobarp]

13 minutes ago, Ani said:

I have added an edit. Because agreeing with you worries me. 

Still agree even with the edited version 

enjoy your worry 

[London Wanderer]

4 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Condescension as ever. Scrutinise away; but get your facts correct and dispose of opinion in doing so.

That's what inquiries are for. That will come later.

At what point later? Not having a dig, just curious. I think an official public enquiry should come later. 

However -considering what wer'e going through is unprecidented and things can change so fast, mistakes are inevitable (even with the best intentions). Shouldn't policies and decisions be under constant inquiry? That way we can make a U-turn without fear of pride and political allegiance getting in the way. 

 

[peelyfeet]

18 minutes ago, Ani said:

People keep talking as though shutting down 2 weeks earlier would have saved lives. When the reality is that it would have only delayed things sadly. 
The purpose of the Government action is to manage the numbers so the NHS could cope. 
Say we closed down 2 weeks ago we would now be coming out of it with infections etc dropping. If we then go back to ‘normal’ the infection would start growing again. There is plenty of talk about a second peak. Closing down too early would as I understand it just lead to a bigger second peak. The long term level of infection will not change as at some point the restrictions lift. What the Govt are trying to do us ensure as often as possible when someone gets serious infection there is an ICU bed. 
Have I got this wrong ?? 

 

Maybe the hope is that we will better prepared to test and monitor people down the line as so also manage the infection level down  ?? 

 

I think other countries will show that early lockdown followed by mass testing and back tracing, using technology and staged restriction release will prove to be better than late lockdown

 Time will tell.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 minute ago, London Wanderer said:

At what point later? Not having a dig, just curious. I think an official public enquiry should come later. 

However -considering what wer'e going through is unprecidented and things can change so fast, mistakes are inevitable (even with the best intentions). Shouldn't policies and decisions be under constant inquiry? That way we can make a U-turn without fear of pride and political allegiance getting in the way. 

 

Inquiries, by their nature, have to be undertaken by an independent person. 

They are done at the end to allow all facts to be gleaned.

Changes of tack and approach during the crisis have to be made by the scientists as more data becomes available, not someone independent from them.

That's how their models will improve for example.

Once it's over, then the overall response will be analysed

[mickbrown]

16 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Condescension as ever. Scrutinise away; but get your facts correct and dispose of opinion in doing so.

That's what inquiries are for. That will come later.

Here’s another thinking he’s in the Gang of Four. You ain’t, don’t flatter yourself. 

[Casino]

Mogg says commons back on April 21?

How does that work

[tyldesley_white]

6 hours ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Spain, Italy, France, lock downed before us and all currently have higher death rate than we do. Only South Korea and Germany have vastly different death rates and I think that was due to test and tracking of those who had CV. Seems you don’t like Johnson to me. 

Have a look at the Bay Area, they locked down a week before the first death

[mickbrown]

28 minutes ago, Ani said:

People keep talking as though shutting down 2 weeks earlier would have saved lives. When the reality is that it would have only delayed things sadly. 
The purpose of the Government action is to manage the numbers so the NHS could cope. 
Say we closed down 2 weeks ago we would now be coming out of it with infections etc dropping. If we then go back to ‘normal’ the infection would start growing again. There is plenty of talk about a second peak. Closing down too early would as I understand it just lead to a bigger second peak. The long term level of infection will not change as at some point the restrictions lift. What the Govt are trying to do us ensure as often as possible when someone gets serious infection there is an ICU bed. 
Have I got this wrong ?? 

 

Maybe the hope is that we will better prepared to test and monitor people down the line as so also manage the infection level down  ?? 

 

Earlier shut down = fewer infections = fewer deaths. 
 

Am I missing summat?

[Mounts Kipper]

3 minutes ago, Casino said:

Mogg says commons back on April 21?

How does that work

It’s remote Parliament. 

Edited April 12, 2020 by Mounts Kipper

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Just now, mickbrown said:

Earlier shut down = fewer infections = fewer deaths. 
 

Am I missing summat?

Yes.

[radcliffe white]

3 minutes ago, Casino said:

Mogg says commons back on April 21?

How does that work

More airline companies are saying they’re taking bookings for June 17th onwards 

doesn’t mean it will happen 

[deane koontz]

10 minutes ago, Ani said:

People keep talking as though shutting down 2 weeks earlier would have saved lives. When the reality is that it would have only delayed things sadly. 
The purpose of the Government action is to manage the numbers so the NHS could cope. 
Say we closed down 2 weeks ago we would now be coming out of it with infections etc dropping. If we then go back to ‘normal’ the infection would start growing again. There is plenty of talk about a second peak. Closing down too early would as I understand it just lead to a bigger second peak. The long term level of infection will not change as at some point the restrictions lift. What the Govt are trying to do us ensure as often as possible when someone gets serious infection there is an ICU bed. 
Have I got this wrong ?? 
 

 

I'd have thought the less folk getting infected would mean the less people losing their lives at the end day. 

Not that I'm into  an habit of "criticising" the current lot right now but that "herd immunity" stuff they were coming out with at the start sounded like the biggest pile of dog shit I've ever heard

I know nowt though and I'm drinking ferociously  😊

 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It’s remote. 

Aye, speaker said something about it according to the news ticker.