COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure to be honest. If it was purely reactive, then I would have expected it to come in pretty much straight away. Either way, I don't much care if it is the right decision.
I only care because making the right decision later then is optimal has very real negative consequences, especially in cases where there are compounding effects such as a pandemic like this one.

Think of calling off the attack and retreating in a battle you can see you are very likely to lose a quarter way through it rather than three quarters way through. The difference in consequences can be devastating, both immediately, but potentially even more so later on in the war (compounding effects).
 
LOL yeah I'm sure there is no way the government are not making policy adjustments based on what's politically expedient at the given moment. I mean, these are top class professional politicians we are talking about - not some rank amateurs.

TBF there are other reasons one or more important person may change their minds at any given moment.

Or alter the emphasis of the briefing.

FWIW, I've always thought 'Science-Led' means as close to fuck all as humanly possible. And a good number of Doctors are absolute grade-A narcissistic cunts with an empathy deficit. I first realised that when I heard the stories of medical students dressing up their cadavers and taking them to the Uni Ball.. In later years, you look at some of what has happened in the name of medicine. And even in the mainstream, couple of years ago I read some absolutely startling letters from senior doctors in, as it happens, The Times, one very lazily postulating that people with real mental health problems were outnumbered dozens to one by malingerers and the work-shy, and the other with some frankly back of the beermat argument as to why another group nearing 5% in our population WOULD have been shed by natural evolution if it wasn't for arranged marriages (I'm laughing now thinking about how shocking his reasoning was). One (very nice guy) GP I chatted to was absolutely categoric that above average narcissism was an essential trait for Doctors to be able to do their job, he wouldn't have survived without it.

I bet you could find hundreds of senior doctors in this country who would happily argue for outright culling - if it was politically acceptable for them to do so (with the GMC and everything). It's not alien to them. It just isn't. But due to the GMC / BMA, there is usually a canonical response to these sorts of situations, the result of considered ethical investigation of the type they don't routinely get into... when there is, they will all follow that. I'm pretty clear that there is no such professionally authorised response in this occassion.

Couple more things.... this Govt have a definite thing for looking lazy and arrogant for effect cos they know the resulting arguments only make the core support even more bloody minded because they can't stant what they see as shrill over-reactions (Rees-Mogg stretching out on the benches anyone?). And they do - already - have a reputation for bullying. I'm perfectly settled with the idea that this guy might have realised things came accross a bit harsh yesterday, maybe was under a little bit of pressure in one way or another. You put a load of clever idiots in an crisis bunker with a lunatic egging them on, and it's easy for them to emerge with a presentation and attitude that might appear to some like the evidence of people appearing to get a little carried away with their 'rational' approach. The answer of course, is that any decision is a balancing act of rationality and acceptibility.

I think it's neccessary to point out that Doctors are in a strange political situation right now. Cummings - who basically is public enemy number one with the teaching profession (the achievement of being hated even MORE than Chris flippin Woodhead is hard to overstate), has widely been percieved as having put them in his sight (along with the BBC). I think it was GMC leader Clare Marx who recently sent her OWN membership a warning to 'stop complaining' about NHS issues and funding or they would lose control and autonomy in the same way Teachers have over the last twenty years. Do you know any GP's, Doctors? They just couldn't ever deal with that sort of thing. Authority and autonomy is the entire point of the gig.

Seriously, if you need to believe everything is rosy and this is the best approach of all in this the best of all possible worlds... I understand, these are uncharted territories, and there isn't an easy answer. But really... you've got to be pretty deaf to other voices to maintain that this is approach is unanswerably, demonstrably correct, and that everyone involved is so immune to any second thoughts, criticism, there's no way they are looking at the response one little bit (given that the public's good faith and continued belief in them is utterly central to the idea working).... that it's all completely and utterly settled and there's absolutely no way that Donald upped the Ante tonight and left our lot looking a bit out of place in having collectively manspread accross the today's front pages.
 
I only care because making the right decision later then is optimal has very real negative consequences, especially in cases where there are compounding effects such as a pandemic like this one.

Think of calling off the attack and retreating in a battle you can see you are very likely to lose a quarter way through it rather than three quarters way through. The difference in consequences can be devastating, both immediately, but potentially even more so later on in the war (compounding effects).

Just out of interest, why do you feel he's bringing these measures in next weekend, rather than immediately if he's being reactive and not proactive?
 
Well, in answer to your original question then of course I would rather be here, given this is where my family, friends and work are. That doesn’t make the government immune from criticism though. Personally, I’m apprehensive about letting it “play its course”.
Obviously you'd like to be where you are and why. But you sort of dodged my point. Which was where and under which regime would you feel safer ?
On the next point, I don't see it going away unless we let it play it's course. This really isn't something we can hide from.
 
Well, in answer to your original question then of course I would rather be here, given this is where my family, friends and work are. That doesn’t make the government immune from criticism though. Personally, I’m apprehensive about letting it “play its course”.

I don’t think from what I saw on tv on Chanel four tonight that there is any alternative? The alternative is lock down until a vaccine comes from what I could work out.
 
Just out of interest, why do you feel he's bringing these measures in next weekend, rather than immediately if he's being reactive and not proactive?
You want my complete conjecture?

In a word: optics.

They want to be seen as if it was the plan (keeping things in their pocket until necessary), rather than a reaction to not having a particularly well defined escalation path (which would more likely be the case to more people if they implemented it immediately).
 
You want my complete conjecture?

In a word: optics.

They want to be seen as if it was the plan (keeping things in their pocket until necessary), rather than a reaction to not having a particularly well defined escalation path (which would more likely be the case to more people if they implemented it immediately).

Thanks for that.
 
Obviously you'd like to be where you are and why. But you sort of dodged my point. Which was where and under which regime would you feel safer ?
If you really require an answer to what seems to me a fairly inane question, then I’ll say Ireland. They seem to be more proactive in their response imo.
 
Thanks for that.
As I said, I am not having a go at you, I am just commenting on the very low probability that the latest action was all part of the established escalation path based on the governments own released information and why their continually making suboptimal decisions (either in quality, timing, or both) is problematic.
 
the ban isn't today.

I know this. But if the plan all along was to ramp up precautions next week then for crying out loud it should have been made clear yesterday. It wasn’t made clear yesterday because they wanted a few more days or everyone going about their business as normal and then announce it when they were ready. Trouble is no one is going about their business normally because no one (understandably) is interested in being a lab rat in the great ‘herd immunity’ and behavioural science experiment.

Take football. Govt advice was to carry on. PL says games as per normal. 45 mins later the Arteta bomb drops and next day all games are postponed until April. Events are overtaking the Govts messaging and It now looks like the Govt are trying to catch up to where the general population is. The Govt has to be seen leading on this so they have brought forward the announcement on measures to be taken because a lot of these measures have been adopted voluntarily anyway.
 
I would imagine that simply “locking yourself away” for six months isn’t really an option for most 75 year olds.

I am sure it is not but what is the alternative?

Well as much as possible or else you are likely to get it and a much higher chance of passing. As much lockdown as possible for that age group surely. Get tonnes of food and medicine in and spend as much time in the garden as you can and minimise interaction and risk of catching? And try and get food and medicines dropped off.

What else do you suggest? They just carry on as normal? I am not arguing just trying to discuss what is best. I have a dad who is 75 and has high blood pressure and other issues and I don’t know what to suggest? I don’t want him catching it when I take the kids up to his etc. Do we just try and have face time communication for several weeks until it has passed (minimising his risk) and I drop his shopping outside the door?
 
Herd immunity without vaccination takes time (usually years), is usually only effective against pathogens that do not rapidly mutate, usually only possible in relatively isolated populations without carrier exchange with other infected populations, requires a very large portion of the population to develop sufficient antibodies, and virtually ensures maximum potential severe outcomes and deaths over the course of development if there are no additional measures for population isolation and infection mitigation.

So using it as a sole real method of containment (even paired with optimised personal hygiene and social distancing) is the near equivalent of just letting the viral outbreak run its course and hoping for the best (i.e. that collectively the population will generate antibodies to the novel coronavirus sufficient to allow for the slowing of transmission until comprehensive vaccinations can begin).

Just want to clarify for those trying to determine if the strategy of attempting to build herd immunity in 6-9 months is the optimum path.
 
Herd immunity without vaccination takes time (usually years), is usually only effective against pathogens that do not rapidly mutate, usually only possible in relatively isolated populations without carrier exchange with other infected populations, requires a very large portion of the population to develop sufficient antibodies, and virtually ensures maximum potential severe outcomes and deaths over the course of development if there are no additional measures for population isolation and infection mitigation.

So using it as a sole real method of containment (even paired with optimised personal hygiene and social distancing) is the near equivalent of just letting the viral outbreak run its course and hoping for the best (i.e. that collectively the population will generate antibodies to the novel coronavirus sufficient to allow for the slowing of transmission until comprehensive vaccinations can begin).

Just want to clarify for those trying to determine if the strategy of attempting to build herd immunity in 6-9 months is the optimum path.

Does anyone know if this thing rapidly mutates?
 
A government's first responsibility is to protect the health of its people but our leaders never had an intention of fighting the virus. They want to manage and control the epidemic. Their words.

Now if that was the only option and it was inevitable I would accept it, but I see nations in the Pacific rim who have virtually defeated the virus.

The government could have actively tested for the virus, they could have mobilised the nation and medical students. The western medical profession doesn't believe you can stop this epidemic so I don't believe that they ever tried to stop it spreading in the first place.

I am not angry for me. I am angry for my parents who will be isolated, frightened and alone sat there wondering how they ever came to be regarded as an expendable herd.
 
I am sure it is not but what is the alternative?

Well as much as possible or else you are likely to get it and a much higher chance of passing. As much lockdown as possible for that age group surely. Get tonnes of food and medicine in and spend as much time in the garden as you can and minimise interaction and risk of catching? And try and get food and medicines dropped off.

What else do you suggest? They just carry on as normal? I am not arguing just trying to discuss what is best. I have a dad who is 75 and has high blood pressure and other issues and I don’t know what to suggest? I don’t want him catching it when I take the kids up to his etc. Do we just try and have face time communication for several weeks until it has passed (minimising his risk) and I drop his shopping outside the door?
I don’t know tbh. Both of my parents are in their mid 70s with underlying health issues too and I’m deeply worried about them. Telling them to simply stay at home for the next six months doesn’t seem plausible though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top