Randomised tests. They wont test the whole population. They'll do a sample and from that make a prediction. I'll go back and watch the episode on the I player again and get some more detailsSurely those are just known (i.e. positively tested) infections, there will be many more that are asymptomatic and untested.
And until we know, the death rate is 1 in 7. The true position is we will never know exact numbers in either category but as a FACT using the most reliable measure , my original numbers stand''Until we know the actual number of people who have or have had the virus''
thank you
If they cannot find a vaccine, it seems some on here want football to be null and void, forever.
I am going back to work, as safely as possible, but not without risk. Those that live off the state can stay at home, until that money runs out.
At some stage we have to get the economy going again, that will mean death for some. Might be me over 60, self employed.
Well who can argue with that !I've heard a very valid perspective that applies itself well to this topic.
For those who think it's ok for (a few or many) people to die a slow and agonising death, so that they can be entertained by a competitive endeavour. Why not campaign for the revival of Roman style arenas and feed people to tormented wild animals?
Or is it easier for you to pointedly overlook the human cost of your fun when the victims (innocent people spending weeks dying in agony with a pipe down their throat into their bleeding lungs), are hidden away in isolation wards so you don't have to look at the human cost of your pleasures?
I'm going to put a stop to this idea that anyone who disagrees with rushing back somehow doesn't want the economy to recover. I am opposed to it for the opposite reason: there is no way you can have 100k+ people dying in a six month period without it ruining your economy, and a second spike will be worse in the long term for the economy than spending a few more weeks in isolation making sure we have test, trace and tracking facilities in place. This positioning of economy vs health is a death cult, pure, naked ideology, and it's a binary that doesn't exist. By rushing back, we are putting both health and the economy in danger. It's not an either/or.
I didn't say rush back.
We always have 100 k dieing in a six month period.
,
Look at excess deaths, it's already been reported way over the 'monthly average'.
Yes non covid deaths will soar in the next 12 months.
I didn't say rush back.
We always have 100 k dieing in a six month period.
10 million unemployed will lead to an immeasurable number of related deaths.
Test and track will be in place when football begins.
A second spike will not be the fault of football, it will be because people cannot control themselves.
Garden centres opened today,
Pure speculation and fear mongering.
Pure speculation and fear mongering.
I like your arguments but have you thought that the second spike maybe a more fundamental wave that hits the northern latitudes in the Winter? I am sure that there are parts of society that just want to ride it out and don't really care about the loss of life. I think you assume that they are controlling and dictating events now but what if it's actually UK science who have sound reasons for wanting to loosen the lockdown? I don't know this, but I have come across some scientists who argue that in the Summer months the UK should cycle social distancing on and off so that more people become immune with the aim of creating a bulwark against a 2nd wave.I'm going to put a stop to this idea that anyone who disagrees with rushing back somehow doesn't want the economy to recover. I am opposed to it for the opposite reason: there is no way you can have 100k+ people dying in a six month period without it ruining your economy, and a second spike will be worse in the long term for the economy than spending a few more weeks in isolation making sure we have test, trace and tracking facilities in place. This positioning of economy vs health is a death cult, pure, naked ideology, and it's a binary that doesn't exist. By rushing back, we are putting both health and the economy in danger. It's not an either/or.
I like your arguments but have you thought that the second spike maybe a more fundamental wave that hits the northern latitudes in the Winter? I am sure that there are parts of society that just want to ride it out and don't really care about the loss of life. I think you assume that they are controlling and dictating events now but what if it's actually UK science who have sound reasons for wanting to loosen the lockdown? I don't know this, but I have come across some scientists who argue that in the Summer months the UK should cycle social distancing on and off so that more people become immune with the aim of creating a bulwark against a 2nd wave.
We are in the dark as ever, but as ever the only way to shine any light on this is to question.
BB, the situation is it’s always been about herd immunity, whether that’s acquired by getting the infection, or via vaccination (some way off). Around 70% population immunity required before no longer a public health issue, we will get an idea once screening modalities improve of population immunity levels and I don’t mean swabs because a negative swan generally means shit. There is medical evidence coming suggesting many have had it without knowing.I think the second spike is due in 2-3 weeks, with the lock down we've just had reinforced, let alone winter, but I'll happily, happily be back here and front up to being wrong if I'm wrong. To your later point, if we are back to herd immunity then I'd like the UK Government to be honest with us about it. I trust the WHO and all the other people who say that aiming for this, with this strain of coronavirus, is tantamount to letting half a million people die, which from a purely economic viewpoint would make the depression we are about to have look like a socially distanced walk in the park.
I'm not like a lot of people here, I'd love football back, I'll be watching the German football this weekend, and I'd happily take Liverpool, who are fair winners, winning the league if we got a punt at Europe and the cup (and more importantly, I'd take Liverpool winning this league and the next 100 if it meant no more deaths and being able to go out and have some beers with my mates over the summer). Just from everything I've read, I don't think we are there yet, and decisions that are being made now will make this more difficult in the future. And I think because of mistakes we made early on, I don't think we will be there till at least August. And for all of the talk of re-starting this season then, taking a hit on lost revenues for 10 games is much more preferable than taking the hit on a whole new season.
But I'm no expert, I hope I'm wrong, but that's where I'm at. But regardless, I just find the framing of economy vs health dangerous, because it's clearly much more complicated than that.
Yes that's true but it works both ways there is a lot of fear mongering with Covid-19 too.
I believe herd immunity is not possible based on the size of the infected population but I do think it could still be a much bigger factor in UK policy. If you look across the globe, there does seem to be a regional trend based around latitude. This fits the seasonal and periodic nature of previous epidemics. I think part of policy may reflect a desire to avoid a Winter Round 2, and hence policy is driven by science, or maybe it coincides with industry. I get the feeling that people like Laura Kuenssberg are always looking for a chink between SAGE and the government, and think there might be a tension between public health and the economy but there is an alternative reading in that the UK scientists maybe softer on the virus than people think because they are playing the long game.I think the second spike is due in 2-3 weeks, with the lock down we've just had reinforced, let alone winter, but I'll happily, happily be back here and front up to being wrong if I'm wrong. To your later point, if we are back to herd immunity then I'd like the UK Government to be honest with us about it. I trust the WHO and all the other people who say that aiming for this, with this strain of coronavirus, is tantamount to letting half a million people die, which from a purely economic viewpoint would make the depression we are about to have look like a socially distanced walk in the park.
I'm not like a lot of people here, I'd love football back, I'll be watching the German football this weekend, and I'd happily take Liverpool, who are fair winners, winning the league if we got a punt at Europe and the cup (and more importantly, I'd take Liverpool winning this league and the next 100 if it meant no more deaths and being able to go out and have some beers with my mates over the summer). Just from everything I've read, I don't think we are there yet, and decisions that are being made now will make this more difficult in the future. And I think because of mistakes we made early on, I don't think we will be there till at least August. And for all of the talk of re-starting this season then, taking a hit on lost revenues for 10 games is much more preferable than taking the hit on a whole new season.
But I'm no expert, I hope I'm wrong, but that's where I'm at. But regardless, I just find the framing of economy vs health dangerous, because it's clearly much more complicated than that.