COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Tim of the Oak]

Some posters have assumed that “herd immunity” is the Government’s strategy when that is to delay the spread of the virus so that our health services can cope with it. Herd immunity could be an eventual bi product of delaying the large scale spread of the virus. As the virus spreads our strategy is becoming more like several other nations. This may well be closing the stable Door after the horse has bolted (compared with eg how China are managing the virus) but for all we know our strategy might be appropriate for us, eg we tend not to be very good at being told what to do. Our communities probably wouldn’t have taken to self isolation until we had plenty of cases of our own.

 

[George Hannah]

Edit : And their standing has not been convincingly criticised, or even criticised for that matter.

Have you even bothered to look at the list of who they are?

 

[bobmcfc]

Sadly not many want to be GP's these days, and I can see why, its ridiculous pressure, on long hours for fairly little gain, after a lot of training, but half the issue is those on reception who won't listen to people.

It’s the only way you can even get in at mine. You want an appointment then you are looking at weeks.

 

[George Hannah]

It seems that even though Sweden is now following a similar approach, they're doing it in a better organized way.

We'll see whether they are better organized than us in the weeks to come, but I'm pleased @blueish swede has confidence in his own government unlike some on here.

 

[SilverFox2]

Yes, hope that they could get it out there in large enough numbers to kill off a load of [in their eyes] elderly, weak and useless people in society that are a burden on the NHS and the bank balance of the country. Democide in action.

Unfortunately it does seem that way.

Almost as though the virus is helping the NHS budget by accidentally targeting that particular group.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Peer reviews don't produce what is being reviewed - they are an endorsement by the community of experts in the field.

I think you may benefit by investing in a good book on the subject

along with @SWP's back - who also doesn't seem to get it's a good idea to follow sound scientific advice rather than the herd instinct.

So just to get this straight, based upon your ducking the question, you are not a scientist. Glad we cleared that up.

I am a former scientist BTW so am quite familiar with how peer review works thanks.

 

[Claytop]

I see France are still going to the polls tomorrow, Christ imagine the scenes if Boris had announced similar..

 

[Uffa]

Some posters have assumed that “herd immunity” is the Government’s strategy when that is to delay the spread of the virus so that our health services can cope with it. Herd immunity could be an eventual bi product of delaying the large scale spread of the virus. As the virus spreads our strategy is becoming more like several other nations. This may well be closing the stable Door after the horse has bolted (compared with eg how China are managing the virus) but for all we know our strategy might be appropriate for us, eg we tend not to be very good at being told what to do. Our communities probably wouldn’t have taken to self isolation until we had plenty of cases of our own.

I don't know mate, it seems to me that in these kind of situations the government shouldn't worry about your petty boredom or how excited you were about the idea of isolating; they should worry about your health and the country's best interests.
As for not being good at being told what to do, I'd argue you're better than us and we're in lockdown. Law enforcement exists for a reason.

 

[Marvin]

“Science” is a broad term though isn’t it?

Epidemiologists aren’t “scientists” either.

Not sure how much use an astrophysicist would be although they’re bona fide scientists.

The problem in life in general and in this case in particular, there is little correlation between genius and common sense. Some of the most brilliant people I have ever known, you would not trust to tie their own shoelaces.

Such it is with the recommendations given to our government and course of action followed thus far.

The theory might suggest that allowing people to get infected - which is what we have been doing - get them treated and back out into the community so as to start to build up herd immunity, might have some possible legs.

But common sense says it's far too risky and based upon many assumptions which may be invalid. If these assumptions are wrong, then the entire strategy is flawed and many, many people die needlessly. The principle dodgy assumptions are these;

1. That draconian measures later on, will be able to stop the NHS being swamped. Given that Italy has twice the ICU capacity we have, and it has been completely overwhelmed, this is surely questionable. The common sense way to minimise the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed, would have been to limit the numbers to the greatest extent possible *before* significant exponential rise. We have not done this. Some of our inactions - like allowing unchecked incoming flights from Italy and Spain for example, have been wreckkess to the point of negligence IMO. And now have tens of thousands of infected citizens, soon to be hundreds of thousands. Many of them are going to get sick. The Tsunami is coming now.

2. That people cannot catch it twice. Who knows?

3. That all other options are ineffective and that "we'll all be catching it anyway". China saw an immediate drop in new cases the moment they implemented the shut down. New cases have now stopped. Similar in northern Italy. People say it will start up again as they get back to normal. But will it?

4. That people will get tired of draconian measures and compliance will fall over time.. Seems to me compliance is worse than it could be because of the governments "relaxed" approach. Also seems to me that people will be pretty disciplined when they see large numbers dying.

If any of the above underpinning assumptions by the government advisers are wrong, then we've chosen the wrong path and will have caused many to die unnecessarily.

The pending lockdown is now going to be much longer than it was precisely because of the laissez-faire attitude of PHE.

They haven't shifted the curve to the right and downwards, but not as far as they could have done. I don't think they tried. The numbers of tests conducted by the UK and USA is very very telling when the WHO first line of defence was isolate and trace. They had no commitment to that at all. They wanted the herd to get infected but they wanted to do it in a controlled manner.

They approached this with their understanding of epidemiology but they've become dogmatic as it's become obvious that there are better approaches which they have ignored, and the piliticians are culpable too because the results of the South Korea and Chinese are glaring.


Even if the infection reemerges there, they can repeat again, and they will survive without losing a huge number of elderly and vulnerable people before introducing immunity through a vaccine

 

[George Hannah]

So just to get this straight, based upon your ducking the question, you are not a scientist. Glad we cleared that up.

I am a former scientist BTW so am quite familiar with how peer review works thanks.

A 'former scientist' - lol - get stuck into that book pronto CB (I reviewed it for a Philosophy of Science journal btw!)

 

[alexmcity]

Yes the other Scandinavian countries are following the UK and Sweden according to info posted earlier by @TCIB. I'm afraid the only huge question mark is over you if you think the UK is led by loonies or it is acceptable to recycle alarmist and discredited misinformation about the situation in France.

You are being naive.

There are different kinds of sciences. As you go from physics through biology to social sciences the predicitve power of the theories gets weaker and weaker. To think that the English experts consulted by the government are the best in the world and know better than all the other is naive. First, medicine, and epidemiology as a branch of medicine, isn't physics or chemistry and the established epidemiological knowledge is far less certain and predictively useful than in the fundamental sciences. Thus, the scientific consenus among epidemologists is generally weaker than in those scienes including the climate science. Second, the strategy how to deal with the CV isn't simply a matter of a narrow scientific knowledge but involves various conjectures about the social,economical,psychological and moral costs of the epidemic. Personally, I think that the UK strategy is more worried about the economy than the other countries.

The news about France was tweeted by Yascha Mounk who is a Harvard professor, I don't think he is spreading misinformation. Let's hope the UK strategy works fine since, if it fails, the outcome will be tragic.

 

[urban genie]

Matt Hancock has written the next stage of the government plan in the telegraph

Behind a pay wall ffs.

Just publish the information online for all

Also the the telegraph? The paper whose editor said a culling of the elderly from covid19 is from an economic side not a bad thing

 

[Tim of the Oak]

I don't know mate, it seems to me that in these kind of situations the government shouldn't worry about your petty boredom or how excited you were about the idea of isolating; they should worry about your health and the country's best interests.
As for not being good at being told what to do, I'd argue you're better than us and we're in lockdown. Law enforcement exists for a reason.

That’s fair comment. I go to Bergamo a couple of times a year and I realise people going into self-isolation isn’t any easier than here. Maybe Agnelli can follow the Italian Government’s advice the next time he’s thinking of commenting about a Atalanta BC lol.

I agree that sometimes our Government needs to take a tougher line. Their ideology is about free market liberalism as well as being populist opportunists. Football
Isn’t so important at times like these.

 

[alexmcity]

 

[Blue Maverick]

I wonder who will be the first big name death I’ve got my money on Prince Phillip

 

[Chippy_boy]

Some posters have assumed that “herd immunity” is the Government’s strategy when that is to delay the spread of the virus so that our health services can cope with it. Herd immunity could be an eventual bi product of delaying the large scale spread of the virus. As the virus spreads our strategy is becoming more like several other nations. This may well be closing the stable Door after the horse has bolted (compared with eg how China are managing the virus) but for all we know our strategy might be appropriate for us, eg we tend not to be very good at being told what to do. Our communities probably wouldn’t have taken to self isolation until we had plenty of cases of our own.

Can you explain to us how allowing incoming flights from Italy and Spain unchecked, has helped to delay the spread?

Or allowing Cheltenham to go ahead? People would not have watched it in the pub, if the event was not on.

Countless activities have been allowed and measures not taken. Opportunities to limit spread, ignored. They may have said the strategy was to delay and flatten the curve, but what is clear is that the actions have not been commensurate with that at all.

It seems plain to me that the plan has been quite deliberately to allow the virus to spread with this ludicrous idea that herd immunity is the solution. And that we're now doing one enormous fucking U-turn having been called out left right and centre about what a shit strategy it was.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Matt Hancock has written the next stage of the government plan in the telegraph

Behind a pay wall ffs.

Just publish the information online for all

Also the the telegraph? The paper whose editor said a culling of the elderly from covid19 is from an economic side not a bad thing

Hancock’s advice is on the Department of Health website. I agree the pay wall article was piss poor.

 

[Chippy_boy]

A 'former scientist' - lol - get stuck into that book pronto CB (I reviewed it for a Philosophy of Science journal btw!)

George, you're being a tosser. You clearly have no expertise at all. I have some. End of..

 

[George Hannah]

You are being naive.

There are different kinds of sciences. As you go from physics through biology to social sciences the predicitve power of the theories gets weaker and weaker. To think that the English experts consulted by the government are the best in the world and know better than all the other is naive. First, medicine, and epidemiology as a branch of medicine, isn't physics or chemistry and the established epidemiological knowledge is far less certain and predictively useful than in the fundamental sciences. Thus, the scientific consenus among epidemologists is generally weaker than in those scienes including the climate science. Second, the strategy how to deal with the CV isn't simply a matter of a narrow scientific knowledge but involves various conjectures about the social,economical,psychological and moral costs of the epidemic. Personally, I think that the UK strategy is more worried about the economy than the other countries.

The news about France was tweeted by Yascha Mounk who is a Harvard professor, I don't think he is spreading misinformation. Let's hope the UK strategy works fine since, if it fails, the outcome will be tragic.

Harvard professor spreading baseless rumours about France shock. Ill informed and naive is exactly how I would describe your posts btw and I would recommend an urgent course of corrective study.

 

[alexmcity]

Harvard professor spreading baseless rumours about France shock. Ill informed and naive is exactly how I would describe your posts btw and I would recommend an urgent course of corrective study.

You come across as a fool.