politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump bans all travel to Europe for a month from tomorrow excl

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump bans all travel to Europe for a month from tomorrow excluding the UK

In a televised statement from the Oval Office on the coronavirus crisis Trump has annouced that a ban on flights between the US and Europe from tomorrow. There is just one exception – the UK.

Read the full story here

TimT

FPT


edmundintokyo said:

"Like I say you can't be *sure* about it, but;
1) Testing is expanding, so limits to testing should impact the left side of the graph more than the right side.
2) The testing should be good enough to at least catch it once people become seriously ill, so if there was a huge part of the picture missing you should see the statistics looking like the disease is getting mysteriously more dangerous."

TimT replied:

Another huge part of the picture missing is that testing is, to my knowledge, limited to real-time PCR which, as it is based on detecting the virus' RNA, will only detect those currently infected, not those who have caught the virus and recovered from it. For that, we need a serology test, based on detecting antibodies to the virus, not its RNA. I think Singapore has developed one, but it has problems with cross-reactivity with dengue, or something.

Until we know the number of people who have had the virus and recovered without being detected to date, we can't really get a good calculation for either the R0 or the fatality rate, and so we won't have good confidence in what percentage of people will catch it, and hence how many are likely to require ICUs or are likely to die.

It is really hard to find out what is being done to get a reliable serological test available for widespread testing.

williamglenn

Someone asked earlier who would be the Rock Hudson of coronavirus.

https://twitter.com/frankluntz/status/1237915731892658178?s=21

CarlottaVance

williamglenn said:

Someone asked earlier who would be the Rock Hudson of coronavirus.

https://twitter.com/frankluntz/status/1237915731892658178?s=21

Let's hope it doesn't get that far, but Hanks does have diabetes.

MyBurningEars

FPT

edmundintokyo said:

alex_ said:

edmundintokyo said:

TimT said:

South Korea and the UK are being held up by medical critics of the Trump Administration as the way it should have been done here.

The first of those two is correct.

Do you apply the same level of contempt to other Govt responses in Europe as you do to the UK?

Yes.

I'm just finding it hard to believe that eastern Asian countries seem have worked out how to keep the spread of this thing under control and their economies working at the same time, without coercion, much of it with simple, common-sense leadership, and the US and Europe have completed ignored what they've been doing for weeks, followed inevitably by huge, disruptive lock-downs when the numbers get to where the numbers were always projected to get to.

"Please consider cancelling events and large gatherings unless they are essential. Please work from home if practical". Why is this hard?

So dumb. So, so dumb.

Something that puzzles me about the UK response is that it's pretty obvious (and there's modelling studies to back this up) that contact tracing is a more effective way to control an outbreak if the number of transmissions caused by each case is nice and low. Contact tracing is quite resource-intensive and can be overwhelmed if community transmission is high. To give it the best chance of working, you want to reduce transmission. And we have ways of doing that. So why was no package of transmission-reduction measures (e.g. at least some of the low-cost forms of social distancing) incorporated into the Contain stage of the response, to give it the best chance of working? Only introducing them at the point where you've de-emphasised contact-tracing as part of your response seems to miss out on the potential synergy of the two approaches.

There must be reasons behind this decision - it wasn't a call made by idiots - and I'm genuinely curious what it was.

Andy_JS

"Michael Osterholm is an internationally recognized expert in infectious disease epidemiology. He is Regents Professor, McKnight Presidential Endowed Chair in Public Health, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, a professor in the Technological Leadership Institute, College of Science and Engineering, and an adjunct professor in the Medical School, all at the University of Minnesota."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw

CarlottaVance

The impact of the flight ban will surely be to divert a huge amount of traffic via the UK.

Only if they stay in the UK for 14 days before they fly on to the US. The ban is on "individuals who have been in Schengen in the last 14 days", not on "flights" per se:

https://twitter.com/DHS_Wolf/status/1237915985476227078?s=20

Also US citizens who have been in Schengen will have to return to the US via designated airports.

MyBurningEars

TimT said:

FPT


edmundintokyo said:

"Like I say you can't be *sure* about it, but;
1) Testing is expanding, so limits to testing should impact the left side of the graph more than the right side.
2) The testing should be good enough to at least catch it once people become seriously ill, so if there was a huge part of the picture missing you should see the statistics looking like the disease is getting mysteriously more dangerous."

TimT replied:

Another huge part of the picture missing is that testing is, to my knowledge, limited to real-time PCR which, as it is based on detecting the virus' RNA, will only detect those currently infected, not those who have caught the virus and recovered from it. For that, we need a serology test, based on detecting antibodies to the virus, not its RNA. I think Singapore has developed one, but it has problems with cross-reactivity with dengue, or something.

Until we know the number of people who have had the virus and recovered without being detected to date, we can't really get a good calculation for either the R0 or the fatality rate, and so we won't have good confidence in what percentage of people will catch it, and hence how many are likely to require ICUs or are likely to die.

It is really hard to find out what is being done to get a reliable serological test available for widespread testing.

I suspect serological tests might help to figure out what's going on with kids. Presumably very few are being tested at the moment, given the rareness of them showing symptoms. Uncertainty over their role in the epidemic is leading to conflicting expert opinion over school closure interventions, for one thing.

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

The impact of the flight ban will surely be to divert a huge amount of traffic via the UK.

Only if they stay in the UK for 14 days before they fly on to the US. The ban is on "individuals who have been in Schengen in the last 14 days", not on "flights" per se:

https://twitter.com/DHS_Wolf/status/1237915985476227078?s=20

Prices for flights from LHR already going through the roof, according to the Telegraph. Perhaps punters haven't read the small print on the proclamation.

edmundintokyo

MyBurningEars said:

There must be reasons behind this decision - it wasn't a call made by idiots - and I'm genuinely curious what it was.

Non-sarcastically, Nadine Dorries is a health minister, the Home Secretary is Priti Patel, and the Prime Minister showed up for a press conference telling people how to avoid spreading a new, highly infectious disease and decided to make up a weird, dangerous lie about shaking hands with infected people.

I know there's supposed to be expert advice involved but at this point I wouldn't like to jump to a conclusion either way about the hypothesis that it was a call made by idiots.

CarlottaVance

Current US travel restrictions:

USA - published 02.03.2020
1. Passengers who have been in China (People's Rep.) in the past 14 days are not allowed to enter the USA.
- This does not apply to nationals of the USA.
- This does not apply to passengers who reside in the USA.
2. Passengers who have been in Iran in the past 14 days are not allowed to enter the USA.
- This does not apply to nationals of the USA.
- This does not apply to passengers who reside in the USA.
- This does not apply to passengers with the invitation of the US government for the purpose related to containment or mitigation of the virus.
- This does not apply to the US Armed Forces and their spouses and children.
3. Passengers who have been in China (People's Rep.) in the past 14 days must arrive at one of the following airports: Atlanta (ATL), Chicago (ORD), Dallas, (DFW), Detroit (DTW), Honolulu (HNL), Los Angeles (LAX), New York (JFK or EWR), San Francisco (SFO), Seattle (SEA) and Washington (IAD).


https://www.iatatravelcentre.com/international-travel-document-news/1580226297.htm

Edit - what would US Armed Forces be doing in Iran???

CarlottaVance

Russians claim 70,601 Covid-19 tests carried out:

As of March 10, 2020, 70,601 laboratory studies carried out by the centers of hygiene and epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation were carried out on the presence of a new coronavirus in the material from people arriving from countries that were unfavorable for the new coronavirus infection. [Google Translate]

https://rospotrebnadzor.ru/about/info/news/news_details.php?ELEMENT_ID=13944

dodrade

Ireland exempt as well?

MyBurningEars

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

There must be reasons behind this decision - it wasn't a call made by idiots - and I'm genuinely curious what it was.

Non-sarcastically, Nadine Dorries is a health minister, the Home Secretary is Priti Patel, and the Prime Minister showed up for a press conference telling people how to avoid spreading a new, highly infectious disease and decided to make up a weird, dangerous lie about shaking hands with infected people.

I know there's supposed to be expert advice involved but at this point I wouldn't like to jump to a conclusion either way about the hypothesis that it was a call made by idiots.

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

edmundintokyo

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where. The advisers can't really say "The Prime Minister is an irresponsible idiot", even when they're literally standing on the same stage with him as he's acting like an irresponsible idiot, and in any case they have to act within the parameters that ministers give them.

If you see people doing stupid shit, and the people officially in charge of them have a history of doing other stupid shit, and they're doing more of it right before your eyes, you should at least keep open the possibility that the stupid shit is coming from the people in charge.

MyBurningEars

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where. The advisers can't really say "The Prime Minister is an irresponsible idiot", even when they're literally standing on the same stage with him as he's acting like an irresponsible idiot, and in any case they have to act within the parameters that ministers give them.

If you see people doing stupid shit, and the people officially in charge of them have a history of doing other stupid shit, and they're doing more of it right before your eyes, you should at least keep open the possibility that the stupid shit is coming from the people in charge.

I think if BoJo and co were rejecting recommendations that the experts strongly supported there'd be leaks of rows in the press, maybe resignations, particularly if what was being done seemed "stupid" and liable to put thousands of lives at risk. I would also expect much stronger pushback from academics and other experts outside the government fold - there's been a little (largely from the usual suspects) but on the whole they've been supportive. As an outsider looking in, I don't think I could deem the government's actions "stupid" but I would be interested in seeing some of their working later.

TimT

MyBurningEars said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

There must be reasons behind this decision - it wasn't a call made by idiots - and I'm genuinely curious what it was.

Non-sarcastically, Nadine Dorries is a health minister, the Home Secretary is Priti Patel, and the Prime Minister showed up for a press conference telling people how to avoid spreading a new, highly infectious disease and decided to make up a weird, dangerous lie about shaking hands with infected people.

I know there's supposed to be expert advice involved but at this point I wouldn't like to jump to a conclusion either way about the hypothesis that it was a call made by idiots.

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

Not sure how this fits into the overall picture, but with a pandemic, there are likely to be multiple waves. So, for example, if Wuhan's repressive measures were so effective that only say 20% of the population were infected before the outbreak was snuffed out there, at some point in the future, once travel and other restrictions have been relaxed, it's highly likely that there will be another outbreak amongst the 80% not yet infected. So having effective controls for the first wave at least in theory could increase your chances of a second wave.

Is there a public interest in having the first wave not limited to the full extent possible, but optimized to the capacity to care for the infected, thereby reducing the chances of later waves and limiting it to a one-and-done?

CarlottaVance

dodrade said:

Ireland exempt as well?

Yes. It's Schengen.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-certain-additional-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/

CarlottaVance

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

MyBurningEars

TimT said:

MyBurningEars said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

There must be reasons behind this decision - it wasn't a call made by idiots - and I'm genuinely curious what it was.

Non-sarcastically, Nadine Dorries is a health minister, the Home Secretary is Priti Patel, and the Prime Minister showed up for a press conference telling people how to avoid spreading a new, highly infectious disease and decided to make up a weird, dangerous lie about shaking hands with infected people.

I know there's supposed to be expert advice involved but at this point I wouldn't like to jump to a conclusion either way about the hypothesis that it was a call made by idiots.

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

Not sure how this fits into the overall picture, but with a pandemic, there are likely to be multiple waves. So, for example, if Wuhan's repressive measures were so effective that only say 20% of the population were infected before the outbreak was snuffed out there, at some point in the future, once travel and other restrictions have been relaxed, it's highly likely that there will be another outbreak amongst the 80% not yet infected. So having effective controls for the first wave at least in theory could increase your chances of a second wave.

Is there a public interest in having the first wave not limited to the full extent possible, but optimized to the capacity to care for the infected, thereby reducing the chances of later waves and limiting it to a one-and-done?

Now you phrase it like that, I wonder if that's what the infamous Boris Twitter clip was really a garbled attempt at explaining then dismissing!

https://order-order.com/2020/03/10/twitter-experts-coronavirus-fake-news/

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/vaughanbell/status/1237746955561861121?s=20

CarlottaVance

Andy_JS said:

"Michael Osterholm is an internationally recognized expert in infectious disease epidemiology. He is Regents Professor, McKnight Presidential Endowed Chair in Public Health, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, a professor in the Technological Leadership Institute, College of Science and Engineering, and an adjunct professor in the Medical School, all at the University of Minnesota."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw

Talks a lot of sense - covering all our favourite topics; face masks, school closures etc and debunks some myths - eg "A sauna will kill the virus".

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1237937071228141568?s=20

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/JayMitchinson/status/1237734851484229635?s=20

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1237949425030434816?s=20

edmundintokyo

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

If the suggestion is that they made a plan 10 years ago and they thought about it very carefully and never mind what happened when those funny foreigners tried more or less the same thing, by god they're going to stick to it, then yes, that sounds sadly plausible.

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/CruiseLog/status/1237953604465709056?s=20

Andy_JS

Maybe polls are a bit inconsequential at present, but this is a new one from Kantar:

Con 50%, Lab 29%, LD 11%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2020

CarlottaVance

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

If the suggestion is that they made a plan 10 years ago and they thought about it very carefully and never mind what happened when those funny foreigners tried more or less the same thing, by god they're going to stick to it, then yes, that sounds sadly plausible.

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

edmundintokyo

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

CarlottaVance

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Which countries are those?

CarlottaVance

Australia considering extending travel ban to European visitors:

The Federal Government has extended its coronavirus travel ban for travellers from Italy, South Korea, Iran and China for another week as the number of Australian cases continues to rise.

The Prime Minister has asked health officials to also consider extending the ban to all travellers from Europe

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-12/coronavirus-travel-ban-extended-global-pandemic/12049448

Nigelb

This is imbecilic:

The White House has ordered health officials to treat top-level coronavirus meetings as classified, according to a Reuters report citing anonymous administration officials.

The unusual step has restricted information about the scope of infections, quarantines and travel restrictions from those without security clearance. Reuters reports:

The White House insistence on secrecy at the nation’s premier public health organization, which has not been previously disclosed, has put a lid on certain information - and potentially delayed the response to the crisis. COVID19, the disease caused by the virus, has killed about 30 people in the United States and infected more than 1,000 people....
(Guardian)

edmundintokyo

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Which countries are those?

South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan have variations on that theme.

Nigelb

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Which countries are those?

South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan have variations on that theme.

And Taiwan.

Mysticrose

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Totally agree. A no brainer.

Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead this week, for instance, is staggeringly irresponsible.

Nigelb

I see the NBA have suspended the basketball season.
Surprisingly proactive.

CarlottaVance

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Which countries are those?

South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan have variations on that theme.

We'll see how well we do relative to South Korea and Japan (responsible for the Diamond Princess petri dish) down the road - meanwhile I'm not sure how popular Hong Kong's approach would be:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/01/810392094/hong-kong-has-contained-coronavirus-so-far-but-at-a-significant-cost

If you close schools i) what evidence is there that it suppresses transmission? 2) what impact does it have on health care with staff being diverted to childcare duties? 3) where asymptomatic infected children are handed over to their grand parents for care, is that a wise course of action? 4) How long would the closure last - given this is likely to run for many months if not several years?

CarlottaVance

More detail on the Hanks story:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-12/tom-hanks-and-rita-wilson-coronavirus-positive/12049366

Mysticrose

Carlotta, it requires genuine lockdown i.e. you put it out there straight that for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time, they are to stay at home.

The Chinese get it and as they are the experts in managing these bloody viruses we should have paid attention.

I mean, Cheltenham Festival this week. Really? What the hell?

Nigelb

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Which countries are those?

South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan have variations on that theme.

We'll see how well we do relative to South Korea and Japan (responsible for the Diamond Princess petri dish) down the road - meanwhile I'm not sure how popular Hong Kong's approach would be:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/01/810392094/hong-kong-has-contained-coronavirus-so-far-but-at-a-significant-cost

If you close schools i) what evidence is there that it suppresses transmission? 2) what impact does it have on health care with staff being diverted to childcare duties? 3) where asymptomatic infected children are handed over to their grand parents for care, is that a wise course of action? 4) How long would the closure last - given this is likely to run for many months if not several years?

For a start, if you introduce a rule than anyone with a respiratory infection should self isolate (which should have been done by now, as we have ample evidence that a significant proportion of cases present initially like the common cold), you’d close most primary schools in the country for lack of teachers anyway.

felix

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Which countries are those?

South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan have variations on that theme.

We'll see how well we do relative to South Korea and Japan (responsible for the Diamond Princess petri dish) down the road - meanwhile I'm not sure how popular Hong Kong's approach would be:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/01/810392094/hong-kong-has-contained-coronavirus-so-far-but-at-a-significant-cost

If you close schools i) what evidence is there that it suppresses transmission? 2) what impact does it have on health care with staff being diverted to childcare duties? 3) where asymptomatic infected children are handed over to their grand parents for care, is that a wise course of action? 4) How long would the closure last - given this is likely to run for many months if not several years?

You are being very kind and patient with EiT who frankly is being a total twat on this based entirely on his political dislike of the government of the day.

CarlottaVance

Trump travel ban:

Will this be effective?
With details of the policy unclear, the Trump administration continues to face questions about its response to a rapidly spreading global crisis.

A recent study published in Science found that the effectiveness of travel restrictions in China was limited once the disease had spread widely within the country. On 23 January, Chinese officials banned travel in and out of Wuhan, where the Covid-19 outbreak began. But by then, the virus had spread to other cities. The travel ban only delayed the progression of the outbreak by three to five days, according to the study.

Daniel Drezner, a professor of International politics at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, told the Guardian that he questioned whether limiting travel from Europe would amount to anything more than “a drop in the bucket”, given the number of cases already reported in the US. “It seems to me that Stephen Miller was looking for a boogey-man and he found one in Europe,” Drezner said, referring to Trump’s aide who is an anti-immigration hardliner.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/trump-coronavirus-europe-travel-suspended?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1583988184

To be clear - it's about "people" not "flights" or "nationalities". So a UK passport holder who had been in Schengen under 14 days before would be denied entry, while a Schengen passport holder who had been in the UK or Ireland for more 14 days would be admitted.

Also the Chinese study is consistent with the UK govt approach to travel bans (horse, stable door)...

Nigelb

Mysticrose said:

Carlotta, it requires genuine lockdown i.e. you put it out there straight that for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time, they are to stay at home.

The Chinese get it and as they are the experts in managing these bloody viruses we should have paid attention.

I mean, Cheltenham Festival this week. Really? What the hell?

Agreed, I can see no reason to haver around with introducing broader measure to limit social mixing straight away.
Wait a week or two and it will be inevitable, but you’ll greatly increase the number infected in the meantime.

Nigelb

Aerosol and surface stability of HCoV-19 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to SARS-CoV-1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v1
Abstract

HCoV-19 (SARS-2) has caused >88,000 reported illnesses with a current case-fatality ratio of ~2%. Here, we investigate the stability of viable HCoV-19 on surfaces and in aerosols in comparison with SARS-CoV-1. Overall, stability is very similar between HCoV-19 and SARS-CoV-1. We found that viable virus could be detected in aerosols up to 3 hours post aerosolization, up to 4 hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel. HCoV-19 and SARS-CoV-1 exhibited similar half-lives in aerosols, with median estimates around 2.7 hours. Both viruses show relatively long viability on stainless steel and polypropylene compared to copper or cardboard: the median half-life estimate for HCoV-19 is around 13 hours on steel and around 16 hours on polypropylene. Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 is plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days.

Sandpit

CarlottaVance said:

Andy_JS said:

"Michael Osterholm is an internationally recognized expert in infectious disease epidemiology. He is Regents Professor, McKnight Presidential Endowed Chair in Public Health, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, a professor in the Technological Leadership Institute, College of Science and Engineering, and an adjunct professor in the Medical School, all at the University of Minnesota."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw

Talks a lot of sense - covering all our favourite topics; face masks, school closures etc and debunks some myths - eg "A sauna will kill the virus".

That was a very good interview, with someone who clearly knows what he’s talking about, his opinions also being remarkably similar to the UK’s CMO.

I do find it amusing that some of the best long-form interviews of the last couple of years come from a stand-up comedian and martial arts fan, as opposed to any one of the hundreds of serious journalists in the USA. Before Rogan, it was Jon Stewart filling a similar role.

CarlottaVance

Mysticrose said:

Carlotta, it requires genuine lockdown i.e. you put it out there straight that for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time, they are to stay at home.

For how long?

edmundintokyo

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Which countries are those?

South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan have variations on that theme.

We'll see how well we do relative to South Korea and Japan (responsible for the Diamond Princess petri dish) down the road - meanwhile I'm not sure how popular Hong Kong's approach would be:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/01/810392094/hong-kong-has-contained-coronavirus-so-far-but-at-a-significant-cost

Much more popular than letting the thing get way out of control, then doing a total lockdown.

CarlottaVance said:

If you close schools i) what evidence is there that it suppresses transmission? 2) what impact does it have on health care with staff being diverted to childcare duties? 3) where asymptomatic infected children are handed over to their grand parents for care, is that a wise course of action? 4) How long would the closure last - given this is likely to run for many months if not several years?

Yes, closing schools is complicated because aside from whether the kids actually pass on the thing, the impact depends where they go instead.

Nigelb

Nigelb said:

Aerosol and surface stability of HCoV-19 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to SARS-CoV-1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v1
Abstract

HCoV-19 (SARS-2) has caused >88,000 reported illnesses with a current case-fatality ratio of ~2%. Here, we investigate the stability of viable HCoV-19 on surfaces and in aerosols in comparison with SARS-CoV-1. Overall, stability is very similar between HCoV-19 and SARS-CoV-1. We found that viable virus could be detected in aerosols up to 3 hours post aerosolization, up to 4 hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel. HCoV-19 and SARS-CoV-1 exhibited similar half-lives in aerosols, with median estimates around 2.7 hours. Both viruses show relatively long viability on stainless steel and polypropylene compared to copper or cardboard: the median half-life estimate for HCoV-19 is around 13 hours on steel and around 16 hours on polypropylene. Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of HCoV-19 is plausible, as the virus can remain viable in aerosols for multiple hours and on surfaces up to days.

IOW, masks have some utility in confined spaces where someone coughs or sneezes.
And also public bathrooms.

CarlottaVance

Trump's speech:

Our team is the best anywhere in the world. At the very start of the outbreak, we instituted sweeping travel restrictions on China and put in place the first federally mandated quarantine in over 50 years. We declared a public health emergency and issued the highest level of travel warning on other countries as the virus spread its horrible infection.

And taking early intense action, we have seen dramatically fewer cases of the virus in the United States than are now present in Europe.
The European Union failed to take the same precautions and restrict travel from China and other hotspots. As a result, a large number of new clusters in the United States were seeded by travellers from Europe.

After consulting with our top government health professionals, I have decided to take several strong but necessary actions to protect the health and wellbeing of all Americans.

To keep new cases from entering our shores, we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days. The new rules will go into effect Friday at midnight. These restrictions will be adjusted subject to conditions on the ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/we-are-at-a-critical-time-trumps-coronavirus-speech-in-full

They probably don't have the data to fact-check it, but I suspect many if not most US infections are now domestic transfer...

Nigelb

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Which countries are those?

South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan have variations on that theme.

We'll see how well we do relative to South Korea and Japan (responsible for the Diamond Princess petri dish) down the road - meanwhile I'm not sure how popular Hong Kong's approach would be:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/01/810392094/hong-kong-has-contained-coronavirus-so-far-but-at-a-significant-cost

Much more popular than letting the thing get way out of control, then doing a total lockdown.

CarlottaVance said:

If you close schools i) what evidence is there that it suppresses transmission? 2) what impact does it have on health care with staff being diverted to childcare duties? 3) where asymptomatic infected children are handed over to their grand parents for care, is that a wise course of action? 4) How long would the closure last - given this is likely to run for many months if not several years?

Yes, closing schools is complicated because aside from whether the kids actually pass on the thing, the impact depends where they go instead.

One has also to consider the adults on the premises.

CarlottaVance

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Which countries are those?

South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan have variations on that theme.

We'll see how well we do relative to South Korea and Japan (responsible for the Diamond Princess petri dish) down the road - meanwhile I'm not sure how popular Hong Kong's approach would be:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/01/810392094/hong-kong-has-contained-coronavirus-so-far-but-at-a-significant-cost

Much more popular than letting the thing get way out of control, then doing a total lockdown.

Hong Kong:

Dirk Pfeiffer, a veterinarian at City University of Hong Kong who studies emerging infectious diseases, says he thinks the city has handled the outbreak reasonably well. But Pfeiffer is troubled by the way the outbreak is dominating life in Hong Kong and causing so much fear.

"I find that disturbing," he says. "Because I don't think our reaction is proportionate to the impact it has on human health."

He points out that in the first two months of this outbreak two people in Hong Kong died from COVID-19 while more than 100 died from the flu.

"At the moment, I worry that everything is focused on COVID-19," he says. "Certainly here in Hong Kong, there's people that turn up [at hospitals] with other ailments or diseases, and it's difficult for them to get into the emergency wards. We need to get the balance right."

CarlottaVance

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Which countries are those?

South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan have variations on that theme.

We'll see how well we do relative to South Korea and Japan (responsible for the Diamond Princess petri dish) down the road - meanwhile I'm not sure how popular Hong Kong's approach would be:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/01/810392094/hong-kong-has-contained-coronavirus-so-far-but-at-a-significant-cost

Much more popular than letting the thing get way out of control, then doing a total lockdown.

CarlottaVance said:

If you close schools i) what evidence is there that it suppresses transmission? 2) what impact does it have on health care with staff being diverted to childcare duties? 3) where asymptomatic infected children are handed over to their grand parents for care, is that a wise course of action? 4) How long would the closure last - given this is likely to run for many months if not several years?

Yes, closing schools is complicated because aside from whether the kids actually pass on the thing, the impact depends where they go instead.

Closing schools is binary. You either do, or don't.

I think the current UK govt approach gets the balance about right. When will Hong Kong schools re-open?

Nigelb

Compared to SARS, it really likes cardboard...
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1237740895207936001

And plastic.
So handle you deliveries with care.

CarlottaVance

Nigelb said:

Compared to SARS, it really likes cardboard...

And plastic.
So handle you deliveries with care.

And the inside of airplanes....

Nigelb

The length of time infected individuals shed virus is much longer than we thought:
https://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/2020/03/covid-19-patients-shed-virus-far-longer-than-thought-researchers-report.html
...The paper also found that the median duration of viral shedding was 20 days in survivors, but the virus was detectable until death in nonsurvivors. The longest observed duration of viral shedding in survivors was 37 days, and the shortest was eight days.
Viral shedding refers to the expulsion and release of virus progeny following successful reproduction during a host-cell infection. Once replication has been completed and the host cell is exhausted of all resources in making viral progeny, the viruses may begin to leave the host.
The level and duration of virus replication are important factors in assessing transmission risk and guide decision-making in treatment and quarantine, the paper says. In an interview with The Lancet, Cao said the median duration of 20 days completely overturns previous assumptions on the detoxification time for acute respiratory virus infection. Longer viral shedding also means longer treatment and quarantine times, he said.
Antiviral drugs seem to have little effect in shortening the viral shedding period, the study suggested. Among the 29 patients who received lopinavir/ritonavir, a medication for the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS, the median duration of viral shedding was 22 days. ...

edmundintokyo

CarlottaVance said:

Closing schools is binary. You either do, or don't.

Not true, there are many schools teaching people of different ages in different locations with different situations. In Japan the government recommended that they closed but they didn't require it, and a couple of decided to reopen. It's ultimately up to the school and the board of education.

Nigelb

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.
Efforts to reduce social mixing are only going to work where a very large proportion of the public cooperates. So you either need an authoritarian/conformist society, or to scare the crap out of everyone.

CarlottaVance

Nigelb said:

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.

And that's only going to stop it for a month - once the restrictions are lifted, cases will grow again.

edmundintokyo

Nigelb said:

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.
Efforts to reduce social mixing are only going to work where a very large proportion of the public cooperates. So you either need an authoritarian/conformist society, or to scare the crap out of everyone.

It's a game of averages rather than an attempt at eradication, so you don't need *everyone* to cooperate. People don't want to get sick, and they don't want other people to get sick. If the Prime Minister just took a lead and said, "the government requests that you do X, Y and Z where practical", that would go a long way.

CarlottaVance

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Closing schools is binary. You either do, or don't.

Not true, there are many schools teaching people of different ages in different locations with different situations. In Japan the government recommended that they closed but they didn't require it, and a couple of decided to reopen. It's ultimately up to the school and the board of education.

How long will Japanese schools stay closed?

Nigelb

Some data on the Korean cases.
Aside from the skewed age profile, another possible contribution to the lower death rate than reported elsewhere is that only 4% of Koreans are obese...
https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1237956764370427904

Nigelb

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Closing schools is binary. You either do, or don't.

Not true, there are many schools teaching people of different ages in different locations with different situations. In Japan the government recommended that they closed but they didn't require it, and a couple of decided to reopen. It's ultimately up to the school and the board of education.

How long will Japanese schools stay closed?

Probably at least a month (I think they have a two week holiday in there).
We have two weeks to Easter...

CarlottaVance

If children don’t experience severe illness from or contribute to the spread of Covid-19 — and so far we have found no clear evidence that they do — it’s likely that school closings will have little effect on its spread.

Not all affected countries have closed schools. Singapore, which has been heralded for its response to Covid-19, decided that closing schools would do more harm than good. Political leaders and health officials there have addressed concerns about Covid-19 through clear, consistent and transparent communications about their response to the virus....

Nonetheless, government officials may feel pressure to close schools. For true effectiveness, schools need to close before even 1 percent of the population is infected and they need to stay closed until the epidemic is over, which could mean months. Children couldn’t gather in other settings, which would be very difficult to enforce.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/opinion/coronavirus-school-closing.html

Nigelb

edmundintokyo said:

Nigelb said:

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.
Efforts to reduce social mixing are only going to work where a very large proportion of the public cooperates. So you either need an authoritarian/conformist society, or to scare the crap out of everyone.

It's a game of averages rather than an attempt at eradication, so you don't need *everyone* to cooperate. People don't want to get sick, and they don't want other people to get sick. If the Prime Minister just took a lead and said, "the government requests that you do X, Y and Z where practical", that would go a long way.

Agreed - but you do need the majority to cooperate, which means persuading some of the sceptics. Which requires a much clearer lead from government, soon.

edmundintokyo

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Closing schools is binary. You either do, or don't.

Not true, there are many schools teaching people of different ages in different locations with different situations. In Japan the government recommended that they closed but they didn't require it, and a couple of decided to reopen. It's ultimately up to the school and the board of education.

How long will Japanese schools stay closed?

There's no official decision about that, but IIUC they're mostly scheduled to break up for the spring vacation in a week or so, then normally they'd come back in the second week of April. So I guess absent new information about kids and coro-chan, if things are looking up they'd reopen them then except maybe in places with clusters, while if we've gone the full Italy then they'd keep them closed. But that's over 3 weeks away, which is a long time from now given the speed things are moving.

PS This kind of speaks to your point about them infecting grandparents etc, because if they're going to be doing that in a few weeks anyhow because of the vacation, you may be better going with "keep the kids away from the disease" rather than "keep the potentially diseased kids away from everybody else".

IanB2

CarlottaVance said:

Trump's speech:

Our team is the best anywhere in the world. At the very start of the outbreak, we instituted sweeping travel restrictions on China and put in place the first federally mandated quarantine in over 50 years. We declared a public health emergency and issued the highest level of travel warning on other countries as the virus spread its horrible infection.

And taking early intense action, we have seen dramatically fewer cases of the virus in the United States than are now present in Europe.
The European Union failed to take the same precautions and restrict travel from China and other hotspots. As a result, a large number of new clusters in the United States were seeded by travellers from Europe.

After consulting with our top government health professionals, I have decided to take several strong but necessary actions to protect the health and wellbeing of all Americans.

To keep new cases from entering our shores, we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days. The new rules will go into effect Friday at midnight. These restrictions will be adjusted subject to conditions on the ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/we-are-at-a-critical-time-trumps-coronavirus-speech-in-full

They probably don't have the data to fact-check it, but I suspect many if not most US infections are now domestic transfer...

Exactly. Although there is evidence that the US is doing its best to keep a lid on news of the problem it already has.

Classic “must do something” and find somebody to blame politics.

Markets have tanked, again, in expectation of a torrid day on Wall Street.

Meanwhile the Braemar, which I said didn’t seem to be heading for the Bahamas despite telling passengers that was the destination, may be bringing everybody back across the Atlantic to Southampton. I doubt there’ll be a band playing on the quayside.

Nigelb

I sincerely hope government is going to do more than ‘consider’.
Requiring anyone with an RTI to stay at home is a absolute no brainier.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51845861
The prime minister is expected to sign off plans to move from the "containment" phase of the outbreak to "delay" at the Cobra meeting later.
The UK's strategy on responding to the virus has three phases: Containment, delay, mitigation and - running alongside these - research.
Delay is where "social distancing" measures will be considered - which could include restrictions on public gatherings above a certain number of people, although this is not thought likely at this stage.
The move could also result in people who show even minor signs of respiratory tract infections or fever soon being told to self-isolate....

CarlottaVance

Nigelb said:

I sincerely hope government is going to do more than ‘consider’.
Requiring anyone with an RTI to stay at home is a absolute no brainier.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51845861
The prime minister is expected to sign off plans to move from the "containment" phase of the outbreak to "delay" at the Cobra meeting later.
The UK's strategy on responding to the virus has three phases: Containment, delay, mitigation and - running alongside these - research.
Delay is where "social distancing" measures will be considered - which could include restrictions on public gatherings above a certain number of people, although this is not thought likely at this stage.
The move could also result in people who show even minor signs of respiratory tract infections or fever soon being told to self-isolate....

Given there's 6 million GP visits a year on RTI, and presumably orders of magnitude more that don't result in visits, thats going to be quite a lot of people self isolating.....

CarlottaVance

For those who missed it Dr Jenny Harries Deputy CMO:

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1237760980450451456?s=20

state_go_away

Nigelb said:

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.
Efforts to reduce social mixing are only going to work where a very large proportion of the public cooperates. So you either need an authoritarian/conformist society, or to scare the crap out of everyone.

Or do littlr as actuslky the virus is not that dangerous. Loads have it far more than diagnosed. That much should be obvious from the high profile names who have it . This means its mortality rate is liw perhaps no more than the flu. How many have died of flu this week. I bet its a lot more than covid 19.. You will kill more people by stopping ecomonies

DecrepiterJohnL

Both America and Russia seem to have excluded Britain from restrictions placed on our European neighbours.
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/russia

Foxy

Mysticrose said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Totally agree. A no brainer.

Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead this week, for instance, is staggeringly irresponsible.

Crazy. Football fixtures too.

Too little too late.

CarlottaVance

For anxious Londoners - you can enter your postcode to estimate how far you are from the nearest case:

http://whereisitin.london

Theuniondivvie

IanB2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Trump's speech:

Our team is the best anywhere in the world. At the very start of the outbreak, we instituted sweeping travel restrictions on China and put in place the first federally mandated quarantine in over 50 years. We declared a public health emergency and issued the highest level of travel warning on other countries as the virus spread its horrible infection.

And taking early intense action, we have seen dramatically fewer cases of the virus in the United States than are now present in Europe.
The European Union failed to take the same precautions and restrict travel from China and other hotspots. As a result, a large number of new clusters in the United States were seeded by travellers from Europe.

After consulting with our top government health professionals, I have decided to take several strong but necessary actions to protect the health and wellbeing of all Americans.

To keep new cases from entering our shores, we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days. The new rules will go into effect Friday at midnight. These restrictions will be adjusted subject to conditions on the ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/12/we-are-at-a-critical-time-trumps-coronavirus-speech-in-full

They probably don't have the data to fact-check it, but I suspect many if not most US infections are now domestic transfer...

Exactly. Although there is evidence that the US is doing its best to keep a lid on news of the problem it already has.

Classic “must do something” and find somebody to blame politics.

Markets have tanked, again, in expectation of a torrid day on Wall Street.

Meanwhile the Braemar, which I said didn’t seem to be heading for the Bahamas despite telling passengers that was the destination, may be bringing everybody back across the Atlantic to Southampton. I doubt there’ll be a band playing on the quayside.

If a band did turn up, playing 'Nearer my God to Thee' would add a certain piquancy.

Foxy

state_go_away said:

Nigelb said:

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.
Efforts to reduce social mixing are only going to work where a very large proportion of the public cooperates. So you either need an authoritarian/conformist society, or to scare the crap out of everyone.

Or do littlr as actuslky the virus is not that dangerous. Loads have it far more than diagnosed. That much should be obvious from the high profile names who have it . This means its mortality rate is liw perhaps no more than the flu. How many have died of flu this week. I bet its a lot more than covid 19.. You will kill more people by stopping ecomonies

A massive outbreak will stop the economy even more

Malmesbury

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.

And that's only going to stop it for a month - once the restrictions are lifted, cases will grow again.

Exactly - stopping the virus altogether (rendering it extinct) will require a vaccine. This is why Merkel was talking about 80% of Germans getting infected. Eventually.

Incidentally, if you read the plan that the government is using, it doesn't have a rigid timetable, or a rigid set of measures. What it does do is discuss the various options, warns that some "obvious" ones might not do anything or even be harmful (based on studies and modelling). It also does set out the broad concept of the delay-contain-etc.

Behavioural science/modelling is a very interesting area - it is at the point where you feed the models with coefficients relating to the demographic profile (age and culture mainly) of the subject group. It can be rather frightening, if you are into civil liberties, how predictable people are in aggregate.

One last point - people here have talk about Normalcy Bias. That may be so - but just as big is the issue of Normalisation. In a couple of days, we have gone from being surprised at toilet paper hoarding/shortages to living with it. The first couple of days of the lock down will scare people etc. By about day 3, with the kids screaming to get out, couples in a small space 24 hours a day etc. the number of people rationalising their way to go for a stroll would probably surprise us all. Worse yet, this will probably need to be repeated over the year.

Look forward to restrictions building to a peak. Then relaxed so that the lights stay on etc. Then restrictions again.

IanB2

Foxy said:

Mysticrose said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Totally agree. A no brainer.

Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead this week, for instance, is staggeringly irresponsible.

Crazy. Football fixtures too.

Too little too late.

Surely we want a pattern of infection that is as even as possible? Far better that it spreads through a crowd drawn from all over the country than we have some local Italian-type cluster caused by transmission through one particular city. Sporting events are ideal for spreading the infection before we go into lockdown.

DecrepiterJohnL

Stockpiling news: at Sainsbury's yesterday, two people in front of me at the till had most of the drugs they were trying to buy blocked. Computer says no, presumably because it worries customers might be planning suicide and makes no allowance for family size.

Sainsbury's Coke and toilet roll shelves were bare, though it was reported B&Q across the road is full of toilet paper so the DIY crowd must be unworried about armageddon.

AlastairMeeks

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Stockpiling news: at Sainsbury's yesterday, two people in front of me at the till had most of the drugs they were trying to buy blocked. Computer says no, presumably because it worries customers might be planning suicide and makes no allowance for family size.

Sainsbury's Coke and toilet roll shelves were bare, though it was reported B&Q across the road is full of toilet paper so the DIY crowd must be unworried about armageddon.

Or using sandpaper.

MarqueeMark

edmundintokyo said:

Yes, closing schools is complicated because aside from whether the kids actually pass on the thing, the impact depends where they go instead.

"Real bad news kids, you are going to have to stay home, watch TV and play games in your room for a couple of weeks... Well make sure you have chocolate biscuits though."

"COOL!!!"

IanB2

Malmesbury said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.

And that's only going to stop it for a month - once the restrictions are lifted, cases will grow again.

Exactly - stopping the virus altogether (rendering it extinct) will require a vaccine. This is why Merkel was talking about 80% of Germans getting infected. Eventually.

Incidentally, if you read the plan that the government is using, it doesn't have a rigid timetable, or a rigid set of measures. What it does do is discuss the various options, warns that some "obvious" ones might not do anything or even be harmful (based on studies and modelling). It also does set out the broad concept of the delay-contain-etc.

Behavioural science/modelling is a very interesting area - it is at the point where you feed the models with coefficients relating to the demographic profile (age and culture mainly) of the subject group. It can be rather frightening, if you are into civil liberties, how predictable people are in aggregate.

One last point - people here have talk about Normalcy Bias. That may be so - but just as big is the issue of Normalisation. In a couple of days, we have gone from being surprised at toilet paper hoarding/shortages to living with it. The first couple of days of the lock down will scare people etc. By about day 3, with the kids screaming to get out, couples in a small space 24 hours a day etc. the number of people rationalising their way to go for a stroll would probably surprise us all. Worse yet, this will probably need to be repeated over the year.

Look forward to restrictions building to a peak. Then relaxed so that the lights stay on etc. Then restrictions again.

A very good post.

Any of us who have been to countries in crisis, or experienced personal trauma or that of loved ones, or indeed read some history, knows that our ability to cope with pretty much anything is greater than we imagine; we just need to go through an adjustment process in our minds, and then we become used to our new circumstance.

Jonathan

MarqueeMark said:

edmundintokyo said:

Yes, closing schools is complicated because aside from whether the kids actually pass on the thing, the impact depends where they go instead.

"Real bad news kids, you are going to have to stay home, watch TV and play games in your room for a couple of weeks... Well make sure you have chocolate biscuits though."

"COOL!!!"

My son is doing GCSEs, this is worrying him a lot.

kamski

TimT said:

MyBurningEars said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

There must be reasons behind this decision - it wasn't a call made by idiots - and I'm genuinely curious what it was.

Non-sarcastically, Nadine Dorries is a health minister, the Home Secretary is Priti Patel, and the Prime Minister showed up for a press conference telling people how to avoid spreading a new, highly infectious disease and decided to make up a weird, dangerous lie about shaking hands with infected people.

I know there's supposed to be expert advice involved but at this point I wouldn't like to jump to a conclusion either way about the hypothesis that it was a call made by idiots.

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

Not sure how this fits into the overall picture, but with a pandemic, there are likely to be multiple waves. So, for example, if Wuhan's repressive measures were so effective that only say 20% of the population were infected before the outbreak was snuffed out there, at some point in the future, once travel and other restrictions have been relaxed, it's highly likely that there will be another outbreak amongst the 80% not yet infected. So having effective controls for the first wave at least in theory could increase your chances of a second wave.

Is there a public interest in having the first wave not limited to the full extent possible, but optimized to the capacity to care for the infected, thereby reducing the chances of later waves and limiting it to a one-and-done?

That might work on theory, but I'm doubtful anyone has the power to optimize the number of infections..

Plus delaying the spread as much as possible makes sense in terms of treatments and eventually a vaccine being developed.

IanB2

MarqueeMark said:

edmundintokyo said:

Yes, closing schools is complicated because aside from whether the kids actually pass on the thing, the impact depends where they go instead.

"Real bad news kids, you are going to have to stay home, watch TV and play games in your room for a couple of weeks... Well make sure you have chocolate biscuits though."

"COOL!!!"

Reminds me of the planned power cuts in the early 1970s, when the leaflet would drop through the door with the little timetable of when the lights would go off. We played board games by candlelight, and had great fun.

CarlottaVance

Foxy said:

Mysticrose said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Totally agree. A no brainer.

Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead this week, for instance, is staggeringly irresponsible.

Crazy. Football fixtures too.

Too little too late.

So what do people do? Go down the pub instead?

Restrictions on public gatherings and public transport
4.21 There is very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings will have any significant effect on influenza virus transmission . Large public gatherings or crowded events where people may be in close proximity are an important indicator of ‘normality’ and may help maintain public morale during a pandemic. The social and economic consequences of advising cancellation or postponement of large gatherings are likely to be considerable for event organisers, contributors and participants. There is also a lack of scientific evidence on the impact of internal travel restrictions on transmission and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare.

4.22 For these reasons, the working presumption will be that Government will not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis will instead be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness. However, local organisers may decide to cancel or postpone events in a pandemic fearing economic loss through poor attendances, and the public themselves may decide not to mix in crowds, or use public transport if other options are available.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

Black_Rook

state_go_away said:

Nigelb said:

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.
Efforts to reduce social mixing are only going to work where a very large proportion of the public cooperates. So you either need an authoritarian/conformist society, or to scare the crap out of everyone.

Or do littlr as actuslky the virus is not that dangerous. Loads have it far more than diagnosed. That much should be obvious from the high profile names who have it . This means its mortality rate is liw perhaps no more than the flu. How many have died of flu this week. I bet its a lot more than covid 19.. You will kill more people by stopping ecomonies

If it's no worse than seasonal flu then how do you explain the response of the Italian Government? I doubt they'd be shutting down the whole country if the reports of the public health system buckling under the strain of it (at the epicentre of the outbreak in Lombardy) were false.

Based on what little I understand of the situation as a lay person, the approach of the British Government to date (i.e. one that is measured and doesn't fly immediately to the extremes) seems sensible - notably keeping the schools open, which avoids crippling the healthcare system and everything else with mass parental absenteeism, as well as loads of kids being dumped on grandparents as makeshift childminders - but even I am left wondering why it is that the Government hasn't at least told pensioners and those with specific medical conditions to start self-isolating. Maybe that will come today?

It may be that the Government is adopting the frog-in-boiling-water approach to social distancing, implementing measures gradually so that it doesn't look like a panic reaction and people accept and get used to them. I just hope that they're not taking it too slowly...

MarqueeMark

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

Mysticrose said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Totally agree. A no brainer.

Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead this week, for instance, is staggeringly irresponsible.

Crazy. Football fixtures too.

Too little too late.

Surely we want a pattern of infection that is as even as possible? Far better that it spreads through a crowd drawn from all over the country than we have some local Italian-type cluster caused by transmission through one particular city. Sporting events are ideal for spreading the infection before we go into lockdown.

Did anyone at Cheltenham or the Liverpool game get checked to see if they had a fever? I'm guessing not. Which is a massive failure of control of this virus. Love to hear that scanning was going on, people with a temperature were quietly intercepted, but.....

bookseller

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Both America and Russia seem to have excluded Britain from restrictions placed on our European neighbours.
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/russia

That really is fascinating. I'd love to know why (i.e., the real reason). It's not just our standing in the world, it must be to do with London...

Foxy

CarlottaVance said:

Foxy said:

Mysticrose said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Totally agree. A no brainer.

Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead this week, for instance, is staggeringly irresponsible.

Crazy. Football fixtures too.

Too little too late.

So what do people do? Go down the pub instead?

Restrictions on public gatherings and public transport
4.21 There is very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings will have any significant effect on influenza virus transmission . Large public gatherings or crowded events where people may be in close proximity are an important indicator of ‘normality’ and may help maintain public morale during a pandemic. The social and economic consequences of advising cancellation or postponement of large gatherings are likely to be considerable for event organisers, contributors and participants. There is also a lack of scientific evidence on the impact of internal travel restrictions on transmission and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare.

4.22 For these reasons, the working presumption will be that Government will not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis will instead be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness. However, local organisers may decide to cancel or postpone events in a pandemic fearing economic loss through poor attendances, and the public themselves may decide not to mix in crowds, or use public transport if other options are available.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

Yep, British exceptionalism, like Philidelphia in the Spanish Flu.

Black_Rook

CarlottaVance said:

Foxy said:

Mysticrose said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Totally agree. A no brainer.

Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead this week, for instance, is staggeringly irresponsible.

Crazy. Football fixtures too.

Too little too late.

So what do people do? Go down the pub instead?

Restrictions on public gatherings and public transport
4.21 There is very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings will have any significant effect on influenza virus transmission . Large public gatherings or crowded events where people may be in close proximity are an important indicator of ‘normality’ and may help maintain public morale during a pandemic. The social and economic consequences of advising cancellation or postponement of large gatherings are likely to be considerable for event organisers, contributors and participants. There is also a lack of scientific evidence on the impact of internal travel restrictions on transmission and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare.

4.22 For these reasons, the working presumption will be that Government will not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis will instead be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness. However, local organisers may decide to cancel or postpone events in a pandemic fearing economic loss through poor attendances, and the public themselves may decide not to mix in crowds, or use public transport if other options are available.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

Quite. And preventing mass gatherings is very difficult in any event if the public won't obey.

Was just watching the report on the European football fixtures on the news a few minutes ago. The decision to hold PSG vs Borussia Dortmund behind closed doors was largely negated by the decision of thousands of PSG supporters to simply form a crowd, jump up and down and let off fireworks outside the stadium instead. Some of the team even went outside to wave obligingly at them after they won. It made a mockery of the whole thing.

MarqueeMark

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

edmundintokyo said:

Yes, closing schools is complicated because aside from whether the kids actually pass on the thing, the impact depends where they go instead.

"Real bad news kids, you are going to have to stay home, watch TV and play games in your room for a couple of weeks... Well make sure you have chocolate biscuits though."

"COOL!!!"

My son is doing GCSEs, this is worrying him a lot.

Exams is certainly an area where Govt. is going to have to give guidance before very long. Worst case, this year they have to scrap them and give grades based on course work to date.

2020 - the year of significant grade inflation. So what?

IanB2

state_go_away said:

Nigelb said:

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.
Efforts to reduce social mixing are only going to work where a very large proportion of the public cooperates. So you either need an authoritarian/conformist society, or to scare the crap out of everyone.

Or do littlr as actuslky the virus is not that dangerous. Loads have it far more than diagnosed. That much should be obvious from the high profile names who have it . This means its mortality rate is liw perhaps no more than the flu. How many have died of flu this week. I bet its a lot more than covid 19.. You will kill more people by stopping ecomonies

Which is the plan, but in a controlled, phased way (we hope). Despite a majority of carriers having a (relatively) benign illness, every wave brings a proportion who need serious medical care. The intention is to avoid health services being overwhelmed as in Lombardy. Yes, the economy will take a massive hit meanwhile (hence markets are still a sell, as people don’t yet understand what is coming) but that is considered better than people dying in the street.

Jonathan

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

edmundintokyo said:

Yes, closing schools is complicated because aside from whether the kids actually pass on the thing, the impact depends where they go instead.

"Real bad news kids, you are going to have to stay home, watch TV and play games in your room for a couple of weeks... Well make sure you have chocolate biscuits though."

"COOL!!!"

My son is doing GCSEs, this is worrying him a lot.

Exams is certainly an area where Govt. is going to have to give guidance before very long. Worst case, this year they have to scrap them and give grades based on course work to date.

2020 - the year of significant grade inflation. So what?

Like many others, my son has done a ton of work. It’s a big deal and deserves respect. For many courses there is no coursework, just mocks. It’s a big deal for a young person.

tlg86

It seems to me that it is pretty pointless banning attendance of sporting events without restricting pubs, clubs, cinemas and theatres too.

CarlottaVance

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

Mysticrose said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Totally agree. A no brainer.

Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead this week, for instance, is staggeringly irresponsible.

Crazy. Football fixtures too.

Too little too late.

Surely we want a pattern of infection that is as even as possible? Far better that it spreads through a crowd drawn from all over the country than we have some local Italian-type cluster caused by transmission through one particular city. Sporting events are ideal for spreading the infection before we go into lockdown.

Did anyone at Cheltenham or the Liverpool game get checked to see if they had a fever? I'm guessing not. Which is a massive failure of control of this virus. Love to hear that scanning was going on, people with a temperature were quietly intercepted, but.....

Infective people are infective before they develop a temperature - Given the expected two to three day incubation period for pandemic influenza, there is no evidence of any public health benefit to be gained from meeting planes from affected countries or similar pro-active measures such as thermal scanning or other screening methods. Such measures are largely ineffective, impractical to implement and highly resource intensive
Citation below.

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Foxy said:

Mysticrose said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

What do you think the UK should be doing differently?

At the very least, the government should be (or rather, should have already done, weeks ago) asking people to consider cancelling events where a lot of people gather, and work from home where practical. This is very low cost, arguably actually productivity-positive, and countries that have had reasonable success in slowing the spread of the virus have done it.

Totally agree. A no brainer.

Allowing Cheltenham to go ahead this week, for instance, is staggeringly irresponsible.

Crazy. Football fixtures too.

Too little too late.

So what do people do? Go down the pub instead?

Restrictions on public gatherings and public transport
4.21 There is very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings will have any significant effect on influenza virus transmission . Large public gatherings or crowded events where people may be in close proximity are an important indicator of ‘normality’ and may help maintain public morale during a pandemic. The social and economic consequences of advising cancellation or postponement of large gatherings are likely to be considerable for event organisers, contributors and participants. There is also a lack of scientific evidence on the impact of internal travel restrictions on transmission and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare.

4.22 For these reasons, the working presumption will be that Government will not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis will instead be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness. However, local organisers may decide to cancel or postpone events in a pandemic fearing economic loss through poor attendances, and the public themselves may decide not to mix in crowds, or use public transport if other options are available.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

Yep, British exceptionalism, like Philidelphia in the Spanish Flu.

Its based on peer reviewed studies:

- Cowling BJ, Lau LLH, Wu P, Wong HWC, Fang VJ, Riley s, Nishiura H. “Entry screening to delay local transmission of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1)” BMC Infectious Diseases 2010, 10:82
-
- Priest PC, Duncan AR, Jennings LC, Baker MG, 2011 Thermal Image Scanning for Influenza Border Screening: Results of an Airport Screening Study. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(1)

What's your research evidence?

OldKingCole

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Stockpiling news: at Sainsbury's yesterday, two people in front of me at the till had most of the drugs they were trying to buy blocked. Computer says no, presumably because it worries customers might be planning suicide and makes no allowance for family size.

Sainsbury's Coke and toilet roll shelves were bare, though it was reported B&Q across the road is full of toilet paper so the DIY crowd must be unworried about armageddon.

There are laws in UK about the amount that may be sold of, for example, paracetamol which may be sold 'on general sale'; i.e. other than through pharmacies, and again what may be sold through pharmacies.
It may well be that the customers could have bought what they wanted had they gone to the in-house pharmacy.

Black_Rook

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

edmundintokyo said:

Yes, closing schools is complicated because aside from whether the kids actually pass on the thing, the impact depends where they go instead.

"Real bad news kids, you are going to have to stay home, watch TV and play games in your room for a couple of weeks... Well make sure you have chocolate biscuits though."

"COOL!!!"

My son is doing GCSEs, this is worrying him a lot.

Exams is certainly an area where Govt. is going to have to give guidance before very long. Worst case, this year they have to scrap them and give grades based on course work to date.

2020 - the year of significant grade inflation. So what?

Like many others, my son has done a ton of work. It’s a big deal and deserves respect. For many courses there is no coursework, just mocks. It’s a big deal for a young person.

Another good reason *NOT* to shut the schools if at all possible.

IanB2

Nigelb said:

Putting all this together, this thing is really hard to stop without keeping everyone apart for a month.
Efforts to reduce social mixing are only going to work where a very large proportion of the public cooperates. So you either need an authoritarian/conformist society, or to scare the crap out of everyone.

It’s not going to stop, and they already know this in advance. In effect the plan is to have us infected in batches of a size that health services can cope with. That quarantine won’t be 100% fully effective actually helps spread the peak and saves a bit of time when each quarantine is lifted.

Theuniondivvie

tlg86 said:

It seems to me that it is pretty pointless banning attendance of sporting events without restricting pubs, clubs, cinemas and theatres too.

There's the scale thing though..

https://twitter.com/laurenleygold/status/1237462115881046017?s=20

OldKingCole

Black_Rook said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

edmundintokyo said:

Yes, closing schools is complicated because aside from whether the kids actually pass on the thing, the impact depends where they go instead.

"Real bad news kids, you are going to have to stay home, watch TV and play games in your room for a couple of weeks... Well make sure you have chocolate biscuits though."

"COOL!!!"

My son is doing GCSEs, this is worrying him a lot.

Exams is certainly an area where Govt. is going to have to give guidance before very long. Worst case, this year they have to scrap them and give grades based on course work to date.

2020 - the year of significant grade inflation. So what?

Like many others, my son has done a ton of work. It’s a big deal and deserves respect. For many courses there is no coursework, just mocks. It’s a big deal for a young person.

Another good reason *NOT* to shut the schools if at all possible.

The virus is probably more dangerous to older teachers than to the students/children/young people.