COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[denislawsbackheel]

If they stay open and a few thousand die then no one will criticise them. They'll have gotten the same results as every other country without shutting down.

that’ll be the Sweden that currently has the second highest number of deaths per capita in the world is it?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

That’s the night I should have been in Birmingham, we’d have both been out on the lash

It was as well! I was supposed to be in a second date the following night too. That relationship has lost a bit of momentum in the last couple of weeks!

 

[Scottyboi]

Singapore to suspend one of its Terminals for 18 months. Gives you an idea of how long they think this will impact us.

My favourite airport

 

[BlueAnorak]

I thought they were locking down after criticism of them not doing well comparatively with the other Nordic countries? They’re gonna be in for a lot of criticism if they stay open and thousands die.

After a few weeks now there is clear evidence that those that were pro active, closed borders and locked down quicker and stricter are doing much better than those that didn’t.

I think the biggest factor in stopping the spread is wearing a mask/covering your nose and mouth and hygiene. Everything else - unless a draconian lock down like China or excelent tracing/tracking like Taiiwan is just tinkering on the edges.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Singapore to suspend one of its Terminals for 18 months. Gives you an idea of how long they think this will impact us.

18 months?

 

[domalino]

that’ll be the Sweden that currently has the second highest number of deaths per capita in the world is it?

Which is what you'd expect if you looked at any of the models. Their strategy results in a short sharp peak, ours results in a broader peak followed by several other broad peaks.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I think some people in this thread are just completely and utterly deluded about what we can actually do to stop this virus.

We can't escape without losing lives.

We can't test 66,000,000 people a week.

We can't have a total enforced lockdown until a vaccine arrives in 18 months.

All we can do is mitigate as best as we can. Reduce and slow the spread, shield the particularly vulnerable, make sure the healthcare system doesn't get overrun.

If Sweden feel they can do that without the full lockdown then that's great for them. We can't, we've just got too many people too densely packed together.

... and far too many knob heads.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

But we can stroke a Tiger!

Grrrrrrrreat post, mate.

 

[jay_mcfc]

And not totally crashed the economy in the process.
Our government will of course then be blamed for locking down.
They looked to be on the rapid escalator a few days back but I'm not sure now with 3 days of reasonable numbers.
They are working from home and social distancing and hygiene thing and, probably the most important thing, wearing masks or covering their faces with scarves. And unlike us people are following the rules.

Sweden is one country where, if you're prepared to lose lives (I wouldn't), this way of doing things could work. Their population is less than 11 million in a huge country. Stockholm is less than 1 million. There'll be more people in London every day than in their entire country.

 

[Chippy_boy]

There is absolutely zero chance of this happening. Your plan to lockdown even more severely than we already are for 18 months is a complete fantasy.

That is not what I have suggested at all. I have said this previously several times:

We lock down as we are doing - ideally we would have done it sooner and harder, since then the peak would have been lower and the duration shorter. But we are where we are.

And then once the infection rate is right down and the death rate near or at zero, then we gradually ease off restrictions and start to get back to normal. However, we start mass scale testing and immediately isolate anyone infected, trace their contacts and isolate them as well. And if the numbers start to pick up, we start imposing restrictions again.

This is the only viable strategy. It is all well and good you talking about "fantasy" but you offer no alternative. 40m get this; tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands die, and the NHS is obliterated. That is your alternative.

Moreover, what I am suggesting is the course shown to be effective in other countries. And for that matter, it's the course we are taking. Singapore are just starting to put restrictions in place again, now that their death toll has reach a dizzy 6 (total, not per day). vs our circa 5,000. They kept it at 6 with vigorous mass testing, isolation and contract tracing. And everyone wears a mask! When our lock down ends, this is PRECISELY what we must do.

 

[jay_mcfc]

That is not what I have suggested at all. I have said this previously several times:

We lock down as we are doing - ideally we would have done it sooner and harder, since then the peak would have been lower and the duration shorter. But we are where we are.

And then once the infection rate is right down and the death rate near or at zero, then we gradually ease off restrictions and start to get back to normal. However, we start mass scale testing and immediately isolate anyone infected, trace their contacts and isolate them as well. And if the numbers start to pick up, we start imposing restrictions again.

This is the only viable strategy. It is all well and good you talking about "fantasy" but you offer no alternative. 40m get this; tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands die, and the NHS is obliterated. That is your alternative.

Moreover, what I am suggesting is the course shown to be effective in other countries. And for that matter, it's the course we are taking.

Spot on! If the UK had done this from 8/9 days earlier when most of the world did it they'd be very close to the other side now and would be easing on restriction within the next 7 days. Instead it's just gonna go on longer.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Singapore to suspend one of its Terminals for 18 months. Gives you an idea of how long they think this will impact us.

At first look, that's extremely alarming. But if you read between the lines, they're basically taking advantage of the slowdown in flights to bring forward planned upgrade and expansion works, with the hope of getting it all done in 18 months rather than leaving it to drag over 4 years.

 

[domalino]

That is not what I have suggested at all. I have said this previously several times:

We lock down as we are doing - ideally we would have done it sooner and harder, since then the peak would have been lower and the duration shorter. But we are where we are.

And then once the infection rate is right down and the death rate near or at zero, then we gradually ease off restrictions and start to get back to normal. However, we start mass scale testing and immediately isolate anyone infected, trace their contacts and isolate them as well. And if the numbers start to pick up, we start imposing restrictions again.

This is the only viable strategy. It is all well and good you talking about "fantasy" but you offer no alternative. 40m get this; tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands die, and the NHS is obliterated. That is your alternative.

Moreover, what I am suggesting is the course shown to be effective in other countries. And for that matter, it's the course we are taking. Singapore are just starting to put restrictions in place again, now that their death toll has reach a dizzy 6 (total, not per day). vs our circa 5,000. They kept it at 6 with vigorous mass testing, isolation and contract tracing. And everyone wears a mask! When our lock down ends, this is PRECISELY what we must do.

You seem to have forgotten where we actually disagree. I have always said we will lock down, then ease and isolate, then re lockdown based on triggers, I've been saying that for weeks like everyone else who read the ICL report. Where we disagreed was where you started talking about a complete lockdown, much more severe than the current one and the efficacy of that vs. the current lockdown.


Death rate will never get to zero under a lock down, it won't get "near" zero. we have millions of essential workers which alone will stop the death rate ever getting "near zero".

Also - you have completely invented "my position" to be one of complete unmitigated spread of the virus which is complete and utter bollocks and you know it is, because I've commented and discussed this pandemic with you enough over the last month. So don't do that, don't argue in bad faith and create bullshit strawmen, it doesn't do anything.

 

[BlueAnorak]

that’ll be the Sweden that currently has the second highest number of deaths per capita in the world is it?

That's bollocks. Their deaths per million population is 13th in the list behind most western european countries.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
Even the current daily death rate per million is below most western european countries

 

[squirtyflower]

Interesting article on the Wuhan virus laboratory.
https://israelunwired.com/ccp-covid-19-origin/
Did the outbreak actually start there? Looking at the CCPs attempts to hide information, I'd say there's a good chance.

If it had been written with even a modicum of decent grammar I may have believed it, but I am going to say, bullshit

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Just wanted extend best wishes to everybody and their families on here. If you are on here, at least we aren't out there or, worst, in the hospital.

Long may it stay that way.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Where we disagreed was where you started talking about a complete lockdown, much more severe than the current one and the efficacy of that vs. the current lockdown.

No I didn't. Let me remind you of the post I made, which you decided to try to criticise:

"I hear what you are saying but there is a fundamental flaw in the various assumptions above "most people will get this at some point".

That absolutely must not be allowed to happen and it can be prevented. It must be prevented. If it is only as deadly as flu and say 40m or 50m people get it then that means 50,000 people dead. Which would mean multiples of that needing ICU treatment and we have nowhere near the capacity to cater for those numbers in any sorts of near timescale, so even more dead.

The objective is to prevent as many people as possible from getting this, not forever, but until a vaccine arrives. And then vaccinate everyone."

And your reply:

"There is absolutely zero chance of this happening. Your plan to lockdown even more severely than we already are for 18 months is a complete fantasy."

You're replying to a post I did not make. Seems to me you just like arguing.

 

[inchy14]

Apparently it's a different strain so I think I am correct in saying that you can get as close as you like with no danger to you or others. It's best to stick to facts not scaremongering in these difficult times.

Am I being Clarkied here????

 

[Rammy Blue]

Sweden is one country where, if you're prepared to lose lives (I wouldn't), this way of doing things could work. Their population is less than 11 million in a huge country. Stockholm is less than 1 million. There'll be more people in London every day than in their entire country.

In the grand scheme, it’s probably quite helpful having a country do what Sweden are doing, as helps us see their success level.

 

[B\connellblue]

Any idea of the real death rate for the UK? As far as I can gather only deaths in hospitals are being counted. If that is true then it's a case of massaging the figures so it doesn't look quite so bad.