Corona Virus main thread

[Aggy 752]

13 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

And why should healthy 25 year old Joe Bloggs with no underlying health problems not be allowed to go and earn a living whilst his mate down the road can earn a living and support his family just because he was “lucky” enough to have caught it a fortnight before?

Because there is nothing fair or equal about this virus or the effects of it. We have to try and seek as much uniformity as we can. Social living is based mainly on conformity, patterns and reliability. We have to listen and heed advice even though we don't agree of see the point of it.

For instance, a two minute drive and I am in the middle of nowhere and could walk my dog for miles without any contact. But we have been advised to exercise our pets and stay at home. So I just walk her around the block until she she has done her business and come home. And I am not doing that because it isn't fair on Londoners stuck in flats, I am doing it because I have been told to do it and it is the best way to hep the country.

It’s not advice though KG. It’s law. You’re committing an offence if you leave your own home other than for defined exceptions.

You’re advocating a system where a healthy fit 25 year old who has no intention of committing a crime is effectively being locked up because they “might” spread a disease (despite not necessarily actually having the disease)

Edited March 31, 2020 by Aggy

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

4 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The logistics of all this are indeed a nightmare, systems will have to be built from scratch and that takes time. Inevitably some will get registered before others and I don't see how it could be otherwise.

I agree Ricardo - it will likely have to be done and yes it wont be terribly fair if some can get it before others. That's life !

What other solution could exist unless one just blindly opens the flood gates again?

I heard Max Hastings a week or so ago (is he 75?) stating (my precis) that 'his' generation will need to 'man-up' at some point and accept that for the economic good of the younger generations once this is under control the 'boomers' will have to grasp that they will need to protect / isolate themselves best they can as the country reopens. He put it rather bluntly as in 'we've had our lives''.

Apologies if I have misquoted but he talked a lot of sense.

[T 190]

It’s an interesting debate. I suspect in reality it would focus at least at first on key workers particularly especially health workers where it would be beneficial for all to be tested.

 

  Other counties which have ID cards could just add the data to existing cards. I kind of understand the objections to ID cards but in reality they are just practical. I also understand the ethical objection to differentiating people who are immune but it may just be the only way we can get things moving again while not risking lives. 

[Aggy 752]

13 minutes ago, T said:

It’s an interesting debate. I suspect in reality it would focus at least at first on key workers particularly especially health workers where it would be beneficial for all to be tested.

 

  Other counties which have ID cards could just add the data to existing cards. I kind of understand the objections to ID cards but in reality they are just practical. I also understand the ethical objection to differentiating people who are immune but it may just be the only way we can get things moving again while not risking lives. 

You go out of the house with “normal” flu you risk the life of my grandma. You can’t be confined to your house if you refuse to have the MMR jab - measles is historically far more deadly than coronavirus.
(Edit : sorry pulled the trigger early there!.... )

It isn’t an economic point. It’s about liberty as much as anything. Where do you find the balance between effectively locking people up for x months and protecting lives? Coronavirus is bad - but it’s not the worst there has ever been or will ever be. 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Aggy

[Aggy 752]

24 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The logistics of all this are indeed a nightmare, systems will have to be built from scratch and that takes time. Inevitably some will get registered before others and I don't see how it could be otherwise.

The logistics aren’t my main concern. If it takes time, it takes time.

It’s the point that the systems need to be in place first to ensure there is no discrimination. As I’ve said above, how do we decide who gets the tests first? “Key workers” fine (although let’s argue about the definition of that some other time)... Then who?
 

There needs to be robust legislation in place dealing with how the tests are to be ‘handed out’, so we don’t end up with white middle aged, middle class males getting the tests (and being granted their liberty once more) before anyone who isn’t a white middle aged middle class male, purely on the basis that they aren’t a white middle aged middle class male.
 

There hasn’t been any suggestion of that in this thread whatsoever, but in a civilised society we should have proper legislation and protections in place and not just be hoping that people don’t discriminate, especially when we’re dealing with people being allowed to leave their home.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Aggy

[ricardo 7,347]

18 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I heard Max Hastings a week or so ago (is he 75?) stating (my precis) that 'his' generation will need to 'man-up' at some point and accept that for the economic good of the younger generations once this is under control the 'boomers' will have to grasp that they will need to protect / isolate themselves best they can as the country reopens. He put it rather bluntly as in 'we've had our lives''.

Apologies if I have misquoted but he talked a lot of sense.

Well I am already ordered to do that and am complying with what was asked of me. Since I have no wish to die, I guess this is going to be my life until a vaccine arrives.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

2 hours ago, Aggy said:

Would suggest reading regulation 6 then regulation 10 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. You’re liable for a fixed penalty if you are out of the house without reasonable cause. Whether or not your local police are enforcing that is neither here nor there. 

My point is merely this - we currently have legislation which says you are committing an offence and are liable for a fine if you go outside for anything other than a few proscribed ‘exceptions’. You don’t need to have any malicious intent. You don’t even need to have coronavirus. Fully fit people with no underlying health conditions are currently unable to legally leave the house just because they fancy a second walk of the day or want to see some friends.

 If the plan is to start letting certain people back into public but not others, that needs to be voted through parliament. We can’t have a situation where Boris (or any other individual or body other than the elected parliament) of his own volition can pick and choose which people have to comply with laws and which don’t. 

 

Aggy, this was my point from before. The regulations are not entirely clearcut, which is why problems have arisen, with the police not being sure what to do. This from The Guardian: 'The source of confusion for frontline officers appears to be a gap between what the emergency legislation actually orders and what the government has said it wants people to do. In his address announcing the lockdown last Monday, Boris Johnson made reference to only exercising once a day – a limitation that is not set out in the law.'

Also I believe there is nothing actually prohibiting people driving to where they decide to exercise, although again that is against the spirit of what the government wants. Added to which I don't think there is anything in the legislation that forces people who go outside to exercise to have documentation proving they are obeying the spirit of the law, such as the one time a day wish.

A couple of quotes from senior officers:

“It is difficult to get precision on quick legislation. Of course it could do with more clarity. These are unprecedented times and we have to make the best of what we’ve got.”

“I think policing is confused about what it is being asked to do. Police officers have no power to stop people going to the Lake District. It takes a long time to build up trust and a short time to destroy it.”

Edited March 31, 2020 by PurpleCanary

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

7 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Well I am already ordered to do that and am complying with what was asked of me. Since I have no wish to die, I guess this is going to be my life until a vaccine arrives.

This is almost certainly correct but a mixture of ever increasing 'herd' immunity will likely lower the risks to acceptable levels before a vaccine truly arrives in volume. 

I think Max's underlying point is that we can't throw all our resources at the boomers whilst destroying the life chances and economics of the 'young'. It's not an acceptable 'trade'. No thoughtful 'boomer' would wish it anyway. 

Get it under control and then in the late summer / autumn then see where we are.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[ricardo 7,347]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

This is almost certainly correct but a mixture of ever increasing 'herd' immunity will likely lower the risks to acceptable levels before a vaccine truly arrives in volume. 

I think Max's underlying point is that we can't throw all our resources at the boomers whilst destroying the life chances and economics of the 'young'. It's not an acceptable 'trade'. No thoughtful 'boomer' would wish it anyway. 

Get it under control and then in the late summer / autumn then see where we are.

That seems sensible, we cannot exist long with the entire economy closed. Those deemed exremely vulnerable will have to make the best of it. I will miss going to CR if it starts again before a vaccine arrives but on balance its a small sacrifice to make in order to keep the country going.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

You’re advocating a system where a healthy fit 25 year old who has no intention of committing a crime is effectively being locked up because they “might” spread a disease (despite not necessarily actually having the disease)

Yes. I have said for so long that Brits will not do as they are told. Too many bleddy experts in the UK. I know better says the Karaoke Party crowd, says the group playing football, says the idiots pretending to cough at people.

So I am not quite 70, so do I think its unfair that I can't go to the supermarket on Monday morning between 8am and 9am. No. Because there has to be a line and a limit.

Until everyone has been tested, either for the virus or for antibodies, everyone is a potential risk.

[Badger 2,405]

13 minutes ago, ricardo said:

That seems sensible, we cannot exist long with the entire economy closed. Those deemed exremely vulnerable will have to make the best of it. I will miss going to CR if it starts again before a vaccine arrives but on balance its a small sacrifice to make in order to keep the country going.

Although an asthmatic, I did not get a letter. A friend of mine also asthmatic did: I can only conclude that his asthma is worse than mine, so vulnerable but probably not as vulnerable as you Ricardo, which may colour my view. However, my understanding is that we do not necessarily have to wait for a vaccine: if the transmission rate is less than 1 the number of occurrences will decline at a growing rate regardless of a vaccine. I don't think we have a vaccine for ebola/ MERs, but life carries on?

At some stage it is possible that life could return to normal for nearly everybody even without a vaccine, although if I had received a letter, I accept I might be thinking differently.

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You’re advocating a system where a healthy fit 25 year old who has no intention of committing a crime is effectively being locked up because they “might” spread a disease (despite not necessarily actually having the disease)

Yes. I have said for so long that Brits will not do as they are told. Too many bleddy experts in the UK. I know better says the Karaoke Party crowd, says the group playing football, says the idiots pretending to cough at people.

So I am not quite 70, so do I think its unfair that I can't go to the supermarket on Monday morning between 8am and 9am. No. Because there has to be a line and a limit.

Until everyone has been tested, either for the virus or for antibodies, everyone is a potential risk.

Exactly KG. 

I also despair of the elderly who because they are currently fit and healthy think it doesn't really apply to them and are out and about when - if they catch it they are far far more likely to need hospitalization than others - needlessly or should I saw thoughtlessly or even selfishly swallowing resources. 

[Aggy 752]

25 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You’re advocating a system where a healthy fit 25 year old who has no intention of committing a crime is effectively being locked up because they “might” spread a disease (despite not necessarily actually having the disease)

Yes. I have said for so long that Brits will not do as they are told. Too many bleddy experts in the UK. I know better says the Karaoke Party crowd, says the group playing football, says the idiots pretending to cough at people.

So I am not quite 70, so do I think its unfair that I can't go to the supermarket on Monday morning between 8am and 9am. No. Because there has to be a line and a limit.

Until everyone has been tested, either for the virus or for antibodies, everyone is a potential risk.

You’re not just being asked not to go to the shop between 8 and 9 am though are you? You’re now committing an offence if you leave your house at all except for specific defined exceptions. You’re liable for a fine for sitting on the edge of your driveway. You may as well be locked up for nicking next door’s TV. Except the offence you’ve committed is leaving your own home when you’re healthy and haven’t got a disease. 

[Barbe bleu 814]

26 minutes ago, Badger said:

 However, my understanding is that we do not necessarily have to wait for a vaccine: if the transmission rate is less than 1 the number of occurrences will decline at a growing rate regardless of a vaccine. 

Yes, if we get the transmission rate, R (or less technically R0) to less than one the disease will die out in a population  pretty soon. 

As more and more people get sick and recover R will naturally fall but the chances of it being sustained at less than one without immunisation are likely to be impossibly low. Most diseases stabilise at R=1 where it stays in a population forever.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

You’re not just being asked not to go to the shop between 8 and 9 am though are you? You’re now committing an offence if you leave your house at all except for specific defined exceptions. You’re liable for a fine for sitting on the edge of your driveway. You may as well be locked up for nicking next door’s TV. Except the offence you’ve committed is leaving your own home when you’re healthy and haven’t got a disease. 

Police forces are being told to be sensible. And to be honest, why would the Police want to be in contact with the public? I leave my driveway to walk to a house two doors away to get the shopping list for an over 80 year old. Technically I am in breach but common sense prevails.

There was a distressed runner out side my house this morning. In one way I had a lot of sympathy as Mrs KG and I used to do long distance running and normally I would have checked with her. But then I thought, from the sweat and dishevilled look, you have just gone long distance and there is no need. I shouted if she wanted water but that was all. Admittedly she resumed OK and said it was cramp but I couldn't help feeling disdain for her reasoning that it was OK to be out for a lengthy period. She may not have met another soul on her run but as she has no chance of competing in any race for a good six months, she really only needed 20 minutes at most. But I guess she knew better than what has been as reasonable. 

[ricardo 7,347]

50 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

At some stage it is possible that life could return to normal for nearly everybody even without a vaccine, although if I had received a letter, I accept I might be thinking differently.

I hope you are correct, the sense of danger may fade with time but for me it is a risky bet that i have no intention of taking. The odds need to chage drastically before I am tempted. The back garden is as far as i will go at present.

[Aggy 752]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

Police forces are being told to be sensible. And to be honest, why would the Police want to be in contact with the public? I leave my driveway to walk to a house two doors away to get the shopping list for an over 80 year old. Technically I am in breach but common sense prevails.

 

I dont think relying on police “being sensible” (ie; individual police constables making their own mind up about how to enforce the law with no real guidelines or framework behind such decisions) is really where I want to see the country going on an issue so fundamental as people’s liberty.  “Common sense” might prevail, until it doesn’t.

Interesting BBC article this morning saying police need to be consistent. The National Police Chief’s council issued guidance following concern that police weren’t applying the law in a uniform manner, and noticeably saying that police should use a “single style and tone”. 

That last point to me suggests concern that one “tone” is being used to some people and a different one to others. I wouldn’t like to guess how the police choose which tone to use for who.

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Aggy

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I hope you are correct, the sense of danger may fade with time but for me it is a risky bet that i have no intention of taking. The odds need to chage drastically before I am tempted. The back garden is as far as i will go at present.

How many times have we all done something and ultimately wished we had waited. And is for real.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

That last point to me suggests concern that one “tone” is being used to some people and a different one to others. I wouldn’t like to guess how the police choose which tone to use for who.

I did post two or three weeks ago that this Nation would not endure police and ultimately, troops on the street.

[Aggy 752]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

That last point to me suggests concern that one “tone” is being used to some people and a different one to others. I wouldn’t like to guess how the police choose which tone to use for who.

I did post two or three weeks ago that this Nation would not endure police and ultimately, troops on the street.

And rightly so, but then how do you enforce the law? 
 

Answer is, you don’t. So then we’re left with two options - either you change the law back to “advice”, or you keep police (and possibly troops) on the street and govern by force. That’s sort of the point I’ve been making.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Aggy

[Badger 2,405]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I hope you are correct, the sense of danger may fade with time but for me it is a risky bet that i have no intention of taking. The odds need to chage drastically before I am tempted. The back garden is as far as i will go at present.

I don't blame you at all. I am not in as high a risk group as you and I am incredibly cautious. I do my one piece of exercise a day, but keep more than 6 feet away. My wife does the shopping with gloves on and we either wash the stuff we bring in or leave it in the boot for 72 hours if we can. 

I might be wrong, but hope that once we get testing properly sorted the transmission rate can be reduced massively. BB thinks this may be impossible - I don't know enough to argue with this, but I don't really understand why it should be the case.

[Van wink 2,994]

3 hours ago, Aggy said:

I’m not trying to cause an argument  - merely pointing out that it’s not as simple as rolling out some testing kits and letting people out if they’ve already had it. There needs to be scrutiny at parliament level before the government is able to start picking and choosing who can leave the house and who can’t. Most likely there will be new regulations, which need to be approved by parliament, confirming in more detail when you can leave your house.
 

At the moment, it’s a blanket regulation applying to everyone - everyone has to stay indoors unless you meet one of the few fairly limited exceptions. But if you’re going to start creating different categories of people who are and are not allowed out of their own homes, that needs massive parliamentary scrutiny. 

I think the SOS has pretty sweeping powers under the emergency legislation but even if that is not the case parliamentary scrutiny is pretty much a rubber stamp atm.

We have to find a way to ensure that those that have acquired immunity can become economically active again, to achieve that we need to massively ramp up our testing capabilities, hopefully the antibody test will be accurate and available on a large scale.

This approach is the one being considered in Germany and has huge societal and logistic problems, but I cant see any way it can be avoided.

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Van wink

[Essjayess 307]

Much still to learn about this virus, for example info from China suggests up to 14% of persons who had the virus then got re infected...there seems to be a mix of reasons why, .maybe some had did not properly get over the virus and the symptoms reappeared...China have said another cause is that of course each persons immune system is different..so a small % have immune sytems not strong enough to attack the virus.

Huge numbers of deaths today in Netherlands and Belgium..if you take population size these numbers rival Italy in scale...but not quite as much as Spain, the worst hit nation in Europe presently.

Netherlands 175 deaths in last 24 hrs, Belgium 192.

Just shows whats coming for us in next few days and why Valiance said next 2 weeks things will worsen. Inevitable it seems that a 300+ daily total is near, followed by a 400+..each bigger jump in numbers is always scary but we know to expect it anyway.

[kick it off 1,948]

[ricardo 7,347]

A lot more of this to come unfortunately.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

Unfortunately... Got to feel for those that can not even bury their loved ones.. grim.

[ron obvious 1,499]

Mortality rates are all over the place.

Why is it 16 deaths/ million in Portugal, 177 in Spain??

Sweden, with little restriction, schools open, has 18. Switzerland 46, Belgium,61 Netherlands 61 despite more stringent regulation.

It'll be a long time before we understand what's really going on.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

This was being discussed on irish radio yesterday. The biggest factor in Swedens low rate of infection is the fact that over 50% of the population live alone. I was very surprised  to hear such a high figure of single inhabitants. God help India.

[ron obvious 1,499]

Meant to add this article. perhaps another reason why JIT isn't always a good idea?

https://unherd.com/2020/03/why-doesnt-britain-value-its-farmers/

 

[Essjayess 307]

8 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Mortality rates are all over the place.

Why is it 16 deaths/ million in Portugal, 177 in Spain??

Sweden, with little restriction, schools open, has 18. Switzerland 46, Belgium,61 Netherlands 61 despite more stringent regulation.

It'll be a long time before we understand what's really going on.

Most nations in Europe, Spain, Germany, Portugal and others, announce their death rates  by regions each day, and a site like Worldometer adds that region to their total...best time to see each 24 hour total for most European nations is late in the evening GMT, around 10 or 11pm before Worldometer clicks their daily 24 hour clock at midnight GMT back to zero deaths daily for all nations.

The UK, unlike most, give out a once a day total combining all regions of UK.