COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Tricky_Trev]

The only way you can think that is if you didn't listen to them last week, when they said they would be announcing all of these measures shortly.

Couldn’t disagree more. They only received the stark forecast yesterday (one that seemed obvious to most) and had to introduce new measures to the tune of “it’s now the right time”. It’s reactionary, not proactive. Last week the message was that it would come in weeks. I don’t think waiting 4 days signified any form of strategy. What is 4 days? The right time was ages ago but they are making it sound like this was planned. A 4 day interval from saying no need for draconian measures to then suddenly needing them is a panicked admission that they were wrong.

 

[cibaman]

I know this is probably a daft question, but I wonder how planet earth is finding this situation. Less traffic, commerce, factories pumping out pollution worldwide?

The Times has satellite images of Europe comparing nitrogen levels in January and now. There’s a significant improvement, especially over northern Italy which in January had the worst air pollution

 

[domalino]

Couldn’t disagree more. They only received the stark forecast yesterday (one that seemed obvious to most) and had to introduce new measures to the tune of “it’s now the right time”. It’s reactionary, not proactive. Last week the message was that it would come in weeks. I don’t think waiting 4 days signified any form of strategy. What is 4 days? The right time was ages ago but they are making it sound like this was planned. A 4 day interval from saying no need for draconian measures to then suddenly needing them is a panicked admission that they were wrong.

They haven't introduced new measures they weren't planning on doing before, they've only brought them forward.

Again, you clearly didn't pay attention last week when they said household isolation, banning mass gatherings and isolating over 70s was all likely to come in soon. You'll probably say they've changed strategy again when they close the schools, despite them saying it's likely to happen in the future.

Also you need to go and read the ICL study. If you do, you'll see that bringing everything in straight away is a) Not viable and b) doesn't actually have the best effect.

 

[alexmcity]

Summary of the ICL study:

 

[domalino]

Correct. The models predicted 14,000 people per day (22 per 100,000 of population) dying at the peak in May/June.

You will be interested in seeing this part of the ICL study Chippy -

Stopping mass gatherings is predicted to have relatively little impact (results not shown) because the contact-time at such events is relatively small compared to the time spent at home, in schools or workplaces and in other community locations such as bars and restaurants.​

 

[BobKowalski]

Marvin, the government was never following the "classic 1918 flu approach of mitigation". They were always bringing in these measures, they've just brought them in sooner.

They never had the strategy of building immunity, outside the fact that they didn't want complete and total suppression, which the ICL study says will not work long term.

By the way for everyone who

It’s ok to say the experts got the initial modelling wrong and we have now switched to suppression rather than mitigation. The modelling guys held a press conference yesterday and said as such. What essentially changed was modelling from a generic virus to modelling based on this specific virus with data from Italy and from our own ICU patients.

This overnight change explains why the Govt was flat footed yesterday on the measures needed for suppression, specifically the economic measures taken in France and elsewhere in Europe. They were heading to suppression sooner they we were and had more time to prepare. I presume we will announce similar measures today.

 

[alexmcity]

It’s ok to say the experts got the initial modelling wrong.

The problem might go deeper.

 

[give it to gordon]

I work outside, but next week I am booked on a course which will mean I am in a classroom with about 20 people for a whole week for 7 hrs aday... plus I have never met. My missus is a diabetic and in the 'at risk' group. I have told my line manager that I dont think it would be wise for me to attend, as government are saying dont socialise etc. Well to me being around 20 people is socialising and is not part of my normal work. I was hoping my boss would take us of the course but he isnt really interested in our health.

 

[Ban-jani]

Based off everything I've read both in here and online, it seems like we're absolutely fucked either we approach this, aren't we?

Pretty much.

It’s lockdown now, destroy the economy, loads of people die and get ill, with the risk that it all happens again once the lockdown ends.

Or... don’t fully lockdown yet, the economy is almost completely fucked, more people get ill and die initially but it might mean less do in the 2nd wave. When we eventually do fully lockdown, the economy is fucked.

That’s our two options.

 

[Tricky_Trev]

I work outside, but next week I am booked on a course which will mean I am in a classroom with about 20 people for a whole week for 7 hrs aday... plus I have never met. My missus is a diabetic and in the 'at risk' group. I have told my line manager that I dont think it would be wise for me to attend, as government are saying dont socialise etc. Well to me being around 20 people is socialising and is not part of my normal work. I was hoping my boss would take us of the course but he isnt really interested in our health.

This is why the government politely asking is the wrong approach. Many people will ignore it and unfortunately many of those people will be line managers. They needed more oomph behind the message, with consequences for non-compliance. At the moment the only consequence is increased risk to health, but that’s not significant enough for millions in this country it seems.