COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Len Rum said:
Not convinced by that press conference as regards banning large gatherings.
The guy on Johnson's left indicated that one infected person would only affect two to three others.
I got the impression he was of the view that in the case of say a football match people proceed straight to their seats and only interact with the people around them.
But in fact an infected person will interact with many more people than this in many different situations pre, during and post match.
He didn't explain this very well which made think that there is politics entering into the science.
AND more concerning ' behavioural theories' were given as explanations for doing very little.
An example of this behavioural theory given at the press conference is that it is best not to do too much now because people will get bored with it all and stop following advice.
Really?
Very worrying.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard the full conference. An expert on radio 4 was saying that if you banned Cheltenham and had it behind closed doors. Most people who would have gone would either go to a pub/betting shop or other location in order to still enjoy the races and get the feel of the event.

The virus is much less likely to spread outside where there is good airflow, lots of UV light and not continual same group interactions when compared to indoors with poor airflow, little UV and constant sharing of the same space.

So as daft as it sounds. The modelling would say that banning the huge public gatherings BUT STILL having the event and pushing people indoors would cause the virus to spread more rapidly.

No idea what's correct but it does seem like a pretty sound explanation.
 
On a positive note - as there is no positivity around - the chances of Liverpool being able to claim properly their first Premier League title, must now be on a knife edge. if we can just stop them winning it until the season is surely cancelled in a week or two, then the best they will be able to claim is that "Well, we would have won it wouldn't we." No 100 points, no winning streak record, no goals record, nothing. Just a nice, hollow, empty "victory". Oh, and no city bus tour either.

Not that I am bitter or anything.
 
KnaresboroughBlue said:
Cancel the games it is unlikely those hundreds of thousands of people are just going to stay home. Some will be in pub, some in cinemas/supermarkets etc. I assume they have taken this into consideration.

I would much rather have them cancel it but that is more to piss the dippers off.
Click to expand...
Most of them will drive to the shops etc,nobody is going to spend hours travelling on public transport to do any of those things
 
Len Rum said:
Not convinced by that press conference as regards banning large gatherings.
The guy on Johnson's left indicated that one infected person would only affect two to three others.
I got the impression he was of the view that in the case of say a football match people proceed straight to their seats and only interact with the people around them.
But in fact an infected person will interact with many more people than this in many different situations pre, during and post match.
He didn't explain this very well which made think that there is politics entering into the science.
AND more concerning ' behavioural theories' were given as explanations for doing very little.
An example of this behavioural theory given at the press conference is that it is best not to do too much now because people will get bored with it all and stop following advice.
Really?
Very worrying.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I have no experience in disease control whatsoever so what I will say is from a point of ignorance but here goes - people who go to mass gatherings such as sporting events are typically crammed into public transport then crammed whilst queuing to get in, then crammed into poor quality toilets, then crammed in on a concourse, crammed in on the way out and then the same on public transport

This is not the case is you are Joe Bloggs MP or Sir Such-and-such but for the majority of us I expect the above to be the case

That said, surely they know that? That can’t be that out of touch, surely??

What do our guys know that the rest of the world doesn’t? I accept we are an island but global theories on dealing or attempting to deal with this must be similar(ish)?
 
mindmyp's_n_q's said:
Haven't heard the full conference. An expert on radio 4 was saying that if you banned Cheltenham and had it behind closed doors. Most people who would have gone would either go to a pub/betting shop or other location in order to still enjoy the races and get the feel of the event.

The virus is much less likely to spread outside where there is good airflow, lots of UV light and not continual same group interactions when compared to indoors with poor airflow, little UV and constant sharing of the same space.

So as daft as it sounds. The modelling would say that banning the huge public gatherings BUT STILL having the event and pushing people indoors would cause the virus to spread more rapidly.

No idea what's correct but it does seem like a pretty sound explanation.
Click to expand...


Don't have the event at all, this is why behind closed door matches are stupid, cancel the lot, no reason for people to gather at all
 
mindmyp's_n_q's said:
Haven't heard the full conference. An expert on radio 4 was saying that if you banned Cheltenham and had it behind closed doors. Most people who would have gone would either go to a pub/betting shop or other location in order to still enjoy the races and get the feel of the event.

The virus is much less likely to spread outside where there is good airflow, lots of UV light and not continual same group interactions when compared to indoors with poor airflow, little UV and constant sharing of the same space.

So as daft as it sounds. The modelling would say that banning the huge public gatherings BUT STILL having the event and pushing people indoors would cause the virus to spread more rapidly.

No idea what's correct but it does seem like a pretty sound explanation.
Click to expand...
Vs cancelling the event and not screening it anywhere?
 
No, or delayed interventions until it reaches its peak - shouldn't the point be to try and minimize the peak or am I missing something
 
This feels like very selective “following the science” to me. I don’t think enough has been explained as to why the thought process here is to gradually build up immunity and accept the consequences rather than try and reverse the flow of the outbreak and attempt to eradicate it that way, which is proving successful elsewhere. I’m also not sure how there’s enough evidence to back up a lot of the assumptions either.

Hard not to be a bit cynical about that update tbh.
 
mindmyp's_n_q's said:
Haven't heard the full conference. An expert on radio 4 was saying that if you banned Cheltenham and had it behind closed doors. Most people who would have gone would either go to a pub/betting shop or other location in order to still enjoy the races and get the feel of the event.

The virus is much less likely to spread outside where there is good airflow, lots of UV light and not continual same group interactions when compared to indoors with poor airflow, little UV and constant sharing of the same space.

So as daft as it sounds. The modelling would say that banning the huge public gatherings BUT STILL having the event and pushing people indoors would cause the virus to spread more rapidly.

No idea what's correct but it does seem like a pretty sound explanation.
Click to expand...

So ban the event. We did during the foot and mouth outbreak if I recall.
 
BobKowalski said:
Travel to and from the game, meeting in pubs, mingling and mixing all the time. The Govt’s argument doesn’t stack up.

Perhaps the goal is risk management so right now not enough of us have the virus so we need more to have it until it reaches point x then we clamp down to delay the inevitable migration through the rest of the population whilst keeping it from overwhelming the system. It’s a vector calculation with an admission there will be casualties.

Not saying this is the case it’s just the way it comes across to me.
Click to expand...
makes some kind of sense to look at it like that but just accepting vulnerable people dying before clamping down to protect the rest just cannot be acceptable,all those vulnerable people are putting the nhs under huge strain and will continue to do so until they all die,what is acceptable,a million,two million? Stop those who can get it from getting it and passing it on now,stop mass gatherings,i can see no reason not to,it wont make it any worse but might just make it better
 
mat said:


So....

Do fuck all.

Be complicit in the deaths of the elderly and vulnerable.


We are run by wankers.

Well done for voting them in.
Click to expand...


Behave ffs.

It’s hyperbole like this that just makes the whole debate ridiculous.

Go into lockdown now, within 4 weeks when it peaks people will be disobeying the lock down and things will get worse.

Herd immunity is needed and it’s the elderly and vulnerable who will be locked down first, to protect them.
 
Ban-jani said:
Behave ffs.

It’s hyperbole like this that just makes the whole debate ridiculous.

Go into lockdown now, within 4 weeks when it peaks people will be disobeying the lock down and things will get worse.

Herd immunity is needed and it’s the elderly and vulnerable who will be locked down first, to protect them.
Click to expand...
it is the opposite,the old and vulnerable are being sacrificed
 
Interestingly had an email today saying I should expect to be prepared to assist whenever possible or called upon, irrespective of my timetable/training.
No real clarification as to what that actually means though, but could be an interesting few weeks ahead.

Also starting to think my holiday to Italy might not happen.
 
BlueMedic said:
Interestingly had an email today saying I should expect to be prepared to assist whenever possible or called upon, irrespective of my timetable/training.
No real clarification as to what that actually means though, but could be an interesting few weeks ahead.

Also starting to think my holiday to Italy might not happen.
Click to expand...

yeah, touch and go on that one...
 
meltonblue said:
This feels like very selective “following the science” to me. I don’t think enough has been explained as to why the thought process here is to gradually build up immunity and accept the consequences rather than try and reverse the flow of the outbreak and attempt to eradicate it that way, which is proving successful elsewhere. I’m also not sure how there’s enough evidence to back up a lot of the assumptions either.

Hard not to be a bit cynical about that update tbh.
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree. We seem to be wanting to follow a path which is certain to result in millions infected and tens of thousands of deaths if not 100,000+. But we can see in other countries such as South Korea, which started from a much worse base, they seem to have got it much more under control and would seem to be heading for an outcome - at least this year - much, much better than that.

Our approach would seem to be "well it's going to happen so how can we best deal with it" rather than "how can we stop this from happening". The latter might have seemed impossible but China have managed it. On the course we're on, if we only end up with as many deaths as China, it will be a fucking miracle. And yet they have 20x the population we do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top