COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[domalino]

The herd immunity is a rational argument but became an irrational argument once other models became viable:

• Extreme social control - China
• High tech testing and detective work - South Korea.

Vaccines appear to be advanced enough to put all priority into social distancing. The longer we leave this, the higher the number of the infected becomes and therefore the harder it will be to stop.

Trying to slow it down, and therefore build up some immunity makes no sense if the objective is to end the infection. If the objective is to build up immunity, then everything the govt has done makes good sense.

I hope Boris panics when he sees the criticism and shuts the country down. If we have 10,000 cases now, then in a week's time we will have 20,000 cases at least, and more people will die. There is no sense in waiting. The immunity argument only stands if you think a vaccine is impossible or not part of the equation.

I suspect China is going to get reinfected but I also suspect that they can control it this time with huge screening programs and high tech. The western medical practioners don't seem willing to learn from their peers but that is what science is all about. You don't always know best. When someone else produces the result they are right.

The herd immunity thing is a classic example of poor communications and panic inducing media creating a completely false narrative.

The government's policy was never to develop herd immunity. They never even said that. It will be a result of the strategy which reduces without completely shutting down the country as Italy has done. The isolation model will result in secondary, and tertiary massive outbreaks with the whole country overrun and locked down, while the UK's approach of a long single outbreak will not have another outbreak.

The problem is that as soon as people heard "herd immunity" they completely ignored the rest of the sentence, which was -

“Our aim is to try to reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it.”​

Here's some comments from people who were actually involved in making the strategy -

“People have misinterpreted the phrase herd immunity as meaning that we’re going to have an epidemic to get people infected,” says Graham Medley at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Medley chairs a group of scientists who model the spread of infectious diseases and advise the government on pandemic responses. He says that the actual goal is the same as that of other countries: flatten the curve by staggering the onset of infections. As a consequence, the nation may achieve herd immunity; it’s a side effect, not an aim. Indeed, yesterday, U.K. Health Secretary Matt Hancock stated, “Herd immunity is not our goal or policy.” The government’s actual coronavirus action plan, available online, doesn’t mention herd immunity at all. “The messaging has been really confusing, and I think that was really unfortunate,” says Petra Klepac, who is also an infectious-disease modeler at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

​

It's being reported now that they're "Backing away from" that strategy, but they aren't, they're just explaining the strategy better now people will listen.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Words fail me, w*****s

FFS that's embarrassing.

 

[cptaidan88]

Can’t help wondering why some of the biggest firms out there like BA have little or no cash reserves. Within weeks of this crisis occurring these firms are running out of cash and looking for bailouts.

BA is actually pressuring the government to avoid bail outs because they (or IAG at least) are sitting on large cash reserves (over £9bn). It is Virgin that is asking for a bail out, and BA dont want them to get one so their main competition fails.

 

[domalino]

Interesting data and findings released by from a professor of clinical immunology.

In this letter, Romagnani explains why massive testing of both symtomatic and asymptomatic cases is vital in order to reduce the spread of Covid-19. This suggests that the policy to stop testing is going to be counterproductive.

The problem with this is that it would be great to have a mass testing program but completely impractical.

In an ideal world, you would test everyone in the country once a day, but there isn't the man power or money to do so.

Testing asymptomatic people makes no sense. You can't decide which people are asymptomatic, and when 99% of them return negative results, the next day when they go out in public, they need to be tested again because they could have caught the virus immediately after the test.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I’m going to put a different slant on the situation. Picture this under lockdown conditions:

• 100% of normal income for those fortunate enough to work from home or enjoy the protection of guaranteed salaries, secure jobs and/or generous sick pay.
• For less fortunate ones, zero or vastly reduced income, mounting debts, maybe a bankrupt business. Increasing desperation, division, rancour, boredom and restlessness. Rinse and repeat for another two or three months.

Maybe it will become inevitable at some point; maybe not. Scientists looking down their test tubes don’t have to wrestle with that timeline. Nor do well-upholstered posters. Governments do. To rush into that situation would be very brave ...or very foolish.

For me personally — and all of this comes from someone with degrees in economics and data science — there is a very real chance I will lose my job in the coming months. Although I am definitely privileged to be able to potentially accommodate a loss of income for a fairly decent amount of time (though, a lot of that is down to working and saving like mad over the past years; I have various investments, as well, but they aren’t likely to be able to carry me anywhere in the current situation), depending on how things go with this crisis, that period may be shortened due to medical costs and also needing to financially support other members of my family.

Even given all of this, I fully support an approach focused on reducing human loss and suffering over economic impact.

But, in fairness, that’s probably because I have a few beloved elderly family members, a cherished young cousin who has only one lung due to a childhood injury, and contracting the virus for me would carry a very high risk of death, so I’m obviously always likely to have that stance.

 

[nmc]

While I agree with some of your point, BA are opposed to a bailout as they have cash reserves. They want the weaker airlines like Virgin to fail so they will have less competition and make more profit in the long run. Government will likely bailout some industries they regard as key for long term growth.

I used BA as an example - their cash position isn’t great - largely due to their historic pension liabilities but, the airline industry has needed more consolidation for a long time but governments being protective of flag carriers has distorted the market. I’d guess a third of airlines including VAA will probably disappear and we will see a more balanced and profitable industry in time. There is a point however that UK firms whenever they sell anything always seem to return every penny to shareholders - in fact giving money to shareholders often drives really poor decisions - Cadbury selling Schweppes being a good example of a crazy decision made at the highest levels - motivated by a board trying to head off a shareholder revolt.

 

[goalmole]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Tories. Or Boris Johnson. Or Dominic Cummings.

The advice they are following is from a large group of scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying this under multiple governments and don't give a fuck about party politics.

They can only offer advice. The advice will be multi faceted and nuanced.
The advice is taken and translated into policy by the government taking into consideration their own interests and biases.
Another government could have taken the same advice and come to different conclusions and policy.

 

[SebastianBlue]

There’s this one too, well you started it ;-)

We need these more than ever right now, mate!

 

[wattle]

Words fail me, w*****s

Aaaagh so proud. What a lovely bunch and a credit to our country. Probably cheeky, jokey scousers by the colour of most of those shirts. Dicks

 

[bobmcfc]

Sat here outside my daughters school waiting for her and they’ve text to say due to staff shortages all year 7 pupils are to stay at home for the rest of the week. For now year 8-11 remain in
St Matthew’s in moston