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.
Given that health services are overwhelmed when there are only a few tens of thousands of cases in a population of tens of millions, the figures don’t stack up for having ‘controlled’ outbreaks.
It is nevertheless the only plan we have.
Remember that it's the number of intensive care beds that is the critical point. One in seven of those hospitalised needs intensive care, and one in five of those with the virus needs hospital. Both wild guesses based on what data we have.
That means that the theoretical maximum number of carriers we can cope with at any one time is around 150,000.
Of course there are then lots of other considerations - on the upside, can more intensive care facilities be created quickly, how often will ICU beds be re-used, etc. On the downside, what other medical caseload will hospitals have, do we have the staff (net of the infected) to maintain services, etc.
You think there are 30000 spare beds in NHS England?
Big deal , who cares that some dumb film star got it, they will be able to buy the best treatment in the world.
It will be interesting to note how reactions change, once it gets to the point that those of means can’t just buy their way to the front of a long rationing queue.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
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.
The word influenza gets used a lot in the doc. As has been pointed out a million times on here it is not the flu.
The doc is the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011.
And is therefore of limited relevance in its analysis.
Which superior analysis do you propose?
One based on the current virus.
Taiwan, for example, had a pandemic preparation plan based on the earlier SARS virus. They seem to have reacted a great deal more promptly and effectively than us.
We seem to have reacted a great deal more promptly and effectively than other nations. Our plans seem to be working while those like the Italians with other plans such as shutting things down have failed.
You cant say that until we find out what things are like during quarantine.
This man is a grade 1 nutter. November really cannot come soon enough.
His comments about the EU failure to contain the virus shows he doesn’t understand the EU clearly he thinks it is a superstate. It isn’t and reaction to the virus was, on the whole an issue for individual countries.
Sauve qui peut.... The Italian government has accused the EU and its member states of being slow in coming to the country’s aid over the coronavirus epidemic.
As leaders held a summit by videoconference and agreed that up to 70% of Europeans could be infected by Covid-19, Italy’s ambassador to the EU complained of a lack of solidarity among member states.
Maurizio Massari said Brussels needed to “go beyond engagement and consultations” and devise “emergency actions that are quick, concrete and effective”.
A flashpoint has been the failure of member states to respond to a call by Italy for extra supplies of medical equipment, including masks.
Trump has essentially killed NATO. He has told the world that America does not see European countries as allies. Under his presidency, there is no way the US would defend them if they were attacked. The consequences for the UK and the EU are immense.
It is important to to fall into Trump’s trap, he gains energy and strength when the outrage from the left/liberals/foreigners goes up. I fear the European media will play into his agenda today.
There is no trap. It’s all very clear. While Trump is US President the basic premise under which NATO operates does not exist.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.
The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone. The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so. Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.
We'll see.
In reality so far: The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century. The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.
What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?
And how has Britain done relative to comparator economies since the referendum vote, which is after all the only relevant time period for assessing this projection of the impact of Brexit?
Its early to tell, after all having a Parliament which refused to actually Brexit was quite disruptive, but so far we've been quite comparable and within margin of error.
Certainly we didn't do badly enough to have grown slower than the Eurozone in the last decade. We've grown faster than France and Germany in the last decade half of which was after the referendum.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
Mr Meeks' Brexit catastrophising has been rather put in the shade by the Covid-hysterics.....
I am touched by your faith in our elders and betters. It is rare to find nowadays.
Just wait until the government finally realizes its policy is a huge, massively dangerous failure and announces that it'll be doing all the things it previously said were a bad idea. The faithful will undergo a flash of inspiration as bad becomes good and good becomes bad.
Which "bad ideas"?
So far the only "bad idea" dismissed is "take it on the chin and get it over with" - other things have been "not yet" rather than "never".
Well exactly. Edmund is wilfully misrepresenting what has been said to make what has been advised worse, pretending that options have been ruled out rather than that the timing is a judgement call. Its pathetic quite frankly - they might make the wrong call or already have made the wrong call without pretending people have been saying certain things should never happen.
The depressing thing is it was entirely predicted that such a lie would be uttered. It is very Trump like.
What would Joe Biden do differently? Be interesting to know.....
I think it unlikely he’d have sacked the entire CDC pandemic response team at the start of his term, and cut funding by two thirds. There might have been a far more rapid response to the testing disaster, which has gone unresolved for about a month.
And I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have pretended it was nothing to worry about until forced to by events.
Starting from when he becomes president next year ? We’ll see. Probably a step up from “It will go away. Just stay calm. Everybody has to be vigilant . . . be calm. It’s really working out.”
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.
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)...
If you believe the numbers the travel ban was just astonishingly successful in China as is evidenced by the relatively low level of infection in all Chinese provinces except Wuhan. I mean incredibly so (and I stress incredible). China's infection rate per million is one quarter of Italy's.
Do Travel bans only become a bad idea when the twat in the White House does them?
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
Mr Meeks' Brexit catastrophising has been rather put in the shade by the Covid-hysterics.....
We've just swapped one PB'ers catastrophising for another's
Trump has essentially killed NATO. He has told the world that America does not see European countries as allies. Under his presidency, there is no way the US would defend them if they were attacked. The consequences for the UK and the EU are immense.
He is certainly hastening its demise - I could easily see him withdrawing the US in his second term - but NATO has been an anachronism that aligns with ever fewer of its members' strategic goals for some time.
Macron's assessment of it as 'brain dead' is probably more accurate than actually dead.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
I am touched by your faith in our elders and betters. It is rare to find nowadays.
Just wait until the government finally realizes its policy is a huge, massively dangerous failure and announces that it'll be doing all the things it previously said were a bad idea. The faithful will undergo a flash of inspiration as bad becomes good and good becomes bad.
Which "bad ideas"?
So far the only "bad idea" dismissed is "take it on the chin and get it over with" - other things have been "not yet" rather than "never".
Well exactly. Edmund is wilfully misrepresenting what has been said to make what has been advised worse, pretending that options have been ruled out rather than that the timing is a judgement call. Its pathetic quite frankly - they might make the wrong call or already have made the wrong call without pretending people have been saying certain things should never happen.
The depressing thing is it was entirely predicted that such a lie would be uttered. It is very Trump like.
Precisely. Arguing that a premature and badly done shut down is counterproductive is not the same as arguing that a well timed and well done shut down is counterproductive. Should be self-evident.
There's a reason the answer to these questions is "not yet" not "never".
This man is a grade 1 nutter. November really cannot come soon enough.
I do hope you aren't eating those words come November.
Oh I know. Biden is senile, gaff prone and in doubtful health. Bluntly if he gets this virus (which must be a real risk as he goes around the country) he is at very high risk. It is utterly bewildering to me that this is the best alternative to a dangerous idiot that the US can find.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
The only baleful malevolence is in your own heart which refuses to accept others can disagree with you on what is best for legitimate reasons.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
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.
The word influenza gets used a lot in the doc. As has been pointed out a million times on here it is not the flu.
The doc is the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011.
And is therefore of limited relevance in its analysis.
Which superior analysis do you propose?
One based on the current virus.
Taiwan, for example, had a pandemic preparation plan based on the earlier SARS virus. They seem to have reacted a great deal more promptly and effectively than us.
We seem to have reacted a great deal more promptly and effectively than other nations. Our plans seem to be working while those like the Italians with other plans such as shutting things down have failed.
On the current trajectory, 1.5m Brits will have it by end of April. ≈ 2x every 4 days at moment.
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.
Given that health services are overwhelmed when there are only a few tens of thousands of cases in a population of tens of millions, the figures don’t stack up for having ‘controlled’ outbreaks.
It is nevertheless the only plan we have.
Remember that it's the number of intensive care beds that is the critical point. One in seven of those hospitalised needs intensive care, and one in five of those with the virus needs hospital. Both wild guesses based on what data we have.
That means that the theoretical maximum number of carriers we can cope with at any one time is around 150,000.
Of course there are then lots of other considerations - on the upside, can more intensive care facilities be created quickly, how often will ICU beds be re-used, etc. On the downside, what other medical caseload will hospitals have, do we have the staff (net of the infected) to maintain services, etc.
You think there are 30000 spare beds in NHS England?
Bit early for sums Malc?
1/5 x 1/7 x 150,000 = 4,285
It will be horribly tight, but not quite as bad as that:
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.
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)...
If you believe the numbers the travel ban was just astonishingly successful in China as is evidenced by the relatively low level of infection in all Chinese provinces except Wuhan. I mean incredibly so (and I stress incredible). China's infection rate per million is one quarter of Italy's.
Do Travel bans only become a bad idea when the twat in the White House does them?
I would rather he stopped flights to the UK.
Given Trump's policies (or lack of them) on Covid19, he could do the UK a favour by stopping the US pool of infection spreading here.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.
The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone. The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so. Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.
We'll see.
In reality so far: The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century. The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.
What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?
Your comparison is wrong as there are inbuilt differences between us and the Eurozone countries. The correct comparison is what the UK world have done had it remained.
This man is a grade 1 nutter. November really cannot come soon enough.
I do hope you aren't eating those words come November.
Oh I know. Biden is senile, gaff prone and in doubtful health. Bluntly if he gets this virus (which must be a real risk as he goes around the country) he is at very high risk. It is utterly bewildering to me that this is the best alternative to a dangerous idiot that the US can find.
The other point is that maggots are eating Biden's brain in real time.
Will they have eaten it all by November?
Again, the Democrats have had 4 years to organise a decent contender.
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.
The word influenza gets used a lot in the doc. As has been pointed out a million times on here it is not the flu.
The doc is the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011.
And is therefore of limited relevance in its analysis.
Which superior analysis do you propose?
One based on the current virus.
Taiwan, for example, had a pandemic preparation plan based on the earlier SARS virus. They seem to have reacted a great deal more promptly and effectively than us.
We seem to have reacted a great deal more promptly and effectively than other nations. Our plans seem to be working while those like the Italians with other plans such as shutting things down have failed.
That is no reason not to look at best practice.
We seem to be following best practice.
I’ve got a feeling that this comment will not age well.
Perhaps it wont. Perhaps the country has made the wrong calls at some crucial moments. We shall certainly find out. That doesnt make it right when some people act like the premise of making a judgement call on when to take specific actions is wrong even if it was executed wrongly. The phased approach may be operated badly without pretending that a phased approach was a reasonable intent.
Those who are just attacking and moaning vs those who are on the look out, quite reasonably, for if the government have made mistakes, are quite distinct. It's like distinguishing art and porn.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
I completely agree with you @AlastairMeeks but sadly, those who say "No one is listening" are correct.
Brexit is a balls-up we have to live with unless Boris moves to EEA
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.
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)...
If you believe the numbers the travel ban was just astonishingly successful in China as is evidenced by the relatively low level of infection in all Chinese provinces except Wuhan. I mean incredibly so (and I stress incredible). China's infection rate per million is one quarter of Italy's.
Do Travel bans only become a bad idea when the twat in the White House does them?
I would rather he stopped flights to the UK.
Given Trump's policies (or lack of them) on Covid19, he could do the UK a favour by stopping the US pool of infection spreading here.
Who comes into the UK is up to the UK - and we're still letting in flights from China.
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.
The word influenza gets used a lot in the doc. As has been pointed out a million times on here it is not the flu.
The doc is the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011.
And is therefore of limited relevance in its analysis.
Which superior analysis do you propose?
One based on the current virus.
Taiwan, for example, had a pandemic preparation plan based on the earlier SARS virus. They seem to have reacted a great deal more promptly and effectively than us.
We seem to have reacted a great deal more promptly and effectively than other nations. Our plans seem to be working while those like the Italians with other plans such as shutting things down have failed.
On the current trajectory, 1.5m Brits will have it by end of April. ≈ 2x every 4 days at moment.
I don't believe that for a second. That comes from expecting current trajectories to continue forever. https://xkcd.com/605/
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.
The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone. The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so. Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.
We'll see.
In reality so far: The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century. The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.
What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?
Your comparison is wrong as there are inbuilt differences between us and the Eurozone countries. The correct comparison is what the UK world have done had it remained.
The comparison is reasonable because the Eurozone is comparable to the UK, as are France and Germany (which give same objective results). In fact since Eurozone as a whole is less developed than the UK you'd think the Eurozone should be growing faster than the UK but it isn't.
There is no objective comparison to what the UK would have done had it remained since we have no way of measuring that.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.
The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone. The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so. Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.
We'll see.
In reality so far: The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century. The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.
What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?
Your comparison is wrong as there are inbuilt differences between us and the Eurozone countries. The correct comparison is what the UK world have done had it remained.
The comparison is reasonable because the Eurozone is comparable to the UK, as are France and Germany (which give same objective results). In fact since Eurozone as a whole is less developed than the UK you'd think the Eurozone should be growing faster than the UK but it isn't.
There is no objective comparison to what the UK would have done had it remained since we have no way of measuring that.
I gave the correct comparison which as you know is unflattering for your obsession’s cause. You obfuscated.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.
The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone. The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so. Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.
We'll see.
In reality so far: The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century. The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.
What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?
Your comparison is wrong as there are inbuilt differences between us and the Eurozone countries. The correct comparison is what the UK world have done had it remained.
The comparison is reasonable because the Eurozone is comparable to the UK, as are France and Germany (which give same objective results). In fact since Eurozone as a whole is less developed than the UK you'd think the Eurozone should be growing faster than the UK but it isn't.
There is no objective comparison to what the UK would have done had it remained since we have no way of measuring that.
I gave the correct comparison which as you know is unflattering for your obsession’s cause. You obfuscated.
Oh really?
So what odds do give that the UK will outgrow the Eurozone in the third decade of this century then? For the third decade in a row that is. You must be pretty confident its not going to happen.
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.
The word influenza gets used a lot in the doc. As has been pointed out a million times on here it is not the flu.
The doc is the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011.
And is therefore of limited relevance in its analysis.
Which superior analysis do you propose?
One based on the current virus.
Taiwan, for example, had a pandemic preparation plan based on the earlier SARS virus. They seem to have reacted a great deal more promptly and effectively than us.
We seem to have reacted a great deal more promptly and effectively than other nations. Our plans seem to be working while those like the Italians with other plans such as shutting things down have failed.
On the current trajectory, 1.5m Brits will have it by end of April. ≈ 2x every 4 days at moment.
Surely many will have had it and recovered by that time?
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
Brexit will be very damaging, but COVID-19 - and, more important - the reaction to it, will do much deeper, longer-lasting damage. A rational response to events at this time would be to extend the transition period. Unfortunately, though, that won’t happen.
I am touched by your faith in our elders and betters. It is rare to find nowadays.
Just wait until the government finally realizes its policy is a huge, massively dangerous failure and announces that it'll be doing all the things it previously said were a bad idea. The faithful will undergo a flash of inspiration as bad becomes good and good becomes bad.
Which "bad ideas"?
So far the only "bad idea" dismissed is "take it on the chin and get it over with" - other things have been "not yet" rather than "never".
Well exactly. Edmund is wilfully misrepresenting what has been said to make what has been advised worse, pretending that options have been ruled out rather than that the timing is a judgement call. Its pathetic quite frankly - they might make the wrong call or already have made the wrong call without pretending people have been saying certain things should never happen.
The depressing thing is it was entirely predicted that such a lie would be uttered. It is very Trump like.
There we have it, the government can never be wrong, it can only ever be part of the way to its ultimate destination of being right.
The reason why this problem is kicking humanity's arse is because every adversary it's come into contact with has been two steps behind. Whatever the UK government does *today* won't start to show results for at least two weeks, which is a huge number in terms of the speed at which the threat is growing. Being right about stopping the spread at some unspecified future time is the same as being wrong.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
Brexit will be very damaging, but COVID-19 - and, more important - the reaction to it, will do much deeper, longer-lasting damage. A rational response to events at this time would be to extend the transition period. Unfortunately, though, that won’t happen.
Brexit will have to be implemented in a time when the economy is weak and the government is having to pay off its Coronavirus debts. That changes things.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
Brexit will be very damaging, but COVID-19 - and, more important - the reaction to it, will do much deeper, longer-lasting damage. A rational response to events at this time would be to extend the transition period. Unfortunately, though, that won’t happen.
Covid-19 will be a short severe shock. Brexit will continue to damage Britain for as long as Leavers continue to let their hatred of the EU act as their overriding decision-making consideration.
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.
Comment of the night above, cruelly cut off at the end of thread.
Even as I try to get across that what we already know gives an upper bound well below much of the catastrophising, the holding off on ready options to make the Contain phase easier confuses me and I wish they were implementing social distancing measures faster.
That is 4,300 for Covid19 stuff. ICUs are mostly full up anyway. AFAIK we do not have 4,300 spare ICU places waiting to be filled.
That is going to be the biggest challenge - how much of its 'normal' workload the NHS can somehow defer or outsource or put into limbo. And to what extent its normal workload reduces because of (or overlaps with) the virus workload.
As well as maintaining reasonable staffing levels with an epidemic on the loose.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.
The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone. The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so. Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.
We'll see.
In reality so far: The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century. The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.
What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?
Alternatively if the UK was doing so well in the EU why risk changing it dramatically?
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.....
They said that fever scanning at airports was ineffective, so maybe there is a read across?
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?
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.
I disagree. I doubt there is anything that the Asian countries are doing that the U.K. has not considered and modelled in the original plan
Moreover the *last* thing you want to be doing right now is throwing new things into the mix “because it looks like it is working in Ruritania”. That will lead to confusion and mistakes.
You stick to the plan while keeping everything under review.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
Alastair. I do worry for you.
I have no irrational hatred of immigrants but now we have left we must move on
I would not like to think you will end up like the Japanese soldier who remained in the jungle for 29 years after the war had ended refusing to believe it was over
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?
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.
I disagree. I doubt there is anything that the Asian countries are doing that the U.K. has not considered and modelled in the original plan
Moreover the *last* thing you want to be doing right now is throwing new things into the mix “because it looks like it is working in Ruritania”. That will lead to confusion and mistakes.
You stick to the plan while keeping everything under review.
What’s the point of reviewing things if you can’t change or adapt?
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.....
They said that fever scanning at airports was ineffective, so maybe there is a read across?
Have you implemented your homeworking policy yet or are you still waiting for the government to tell you to do it?
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.
Given that health services are overwhelmed when there are only a few tens of thousands of cases in a population of tens of millions, the figures don’t stack up for having ‘controlled’ outbreaks.
It is nevertheless the only plan we have.
Remember that it's the number of intensive care beds that is the critical point. One in seven of those hospitalised needs intensive care, and one in five of those with the virus needs hospital. Both wild guesses based on what data we have.
That means that the theoretical maximum number of carriers we can cope with at any one time is around 150,000.
Of course there are then lots of other considerations - on the upside, can more intensive care facilities be created quickly, how often will ICU beds be re-used, etc. On the downside, what other medical caseload will hospitals have, do we have the staff (net of the infected) to maintain services, etc.
You think there are 30000 spare beds in NHS England?
Bit early for sums Malc?
1/5 x 1/7 x 150,000 = 4,285
It will be horribly tight, but not quite as bad as that:
He said 1 in 5 needed hospitalised so 150000 / 5 = 30000 methinks. Perhaps you are used to English education where you make up any answer and get an A grade. PS: Assume you think England has 26000 spare ordinary / HDU beds as well as 4.5K ICU beds. Just the other day they quoted average ICU with at least 75% occupancy in normal circumstances , so even on a good day less than 25% are available countrywide.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.
The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone. The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so. Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.
We'll see.
In reality so far: The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century. The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.
What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?
Alternatively if the UK was doing so well in the EU why risk changing it dramatically?
Because Brexit was about far more than just economics.
Mr. Meeks, do you believe it's possible to rationally want the UK to leave the EU?
That question is no longer relevant. Leavers have now self-radicalised themselves so much that arguments that they would have scorned as ridiculous hype from Remainers are now orthodoxy. Any hint of accommodation with the EU is regarded as treachery. And that is guiding policy.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
Alastair. I do worry for you.
I have no irrational hatred of immigrants but now we have left we must move on
I would not like to think you will end up like the Japanese soldier who remained in the jungle for 29 years after the war had ended refusing to believe it was over
If the Eurosceptics took that view Brexit would not have happened. Looking at their success, Remainers have every incentive to dig in and fight for what they believe in. Nothing is settled.
That is 4,300 for Covid19 stuff. ICUs are mostly full up anyway. AFAIK we do not have 4,300 spare ICU places waiting to be filled.
That is going to be the biggest challenge - how much of its 'normal' workload the NHS can somehow defer or outsource or put into limbo. And to what extent its normal workload reduces because of (or overlaps with) the virus workload.
As well as maintaining reasonable staffing levels with an epidemic on the loose.
There will almost certainly be deaths not directly attributable to Covid-19 but which have resulted from the strain on the system - delayed operations and so forth.
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.
Comment of the night above, cruelly cut off at the end of thread.
Even as I try to get across that what we already know gives an upper bound well below much of the catastrophising, the holding off on ready options to make the Contain phase easier confuses me and I wish they were implementing social distancing measures faster.
I expect the answer to MBE's question is that the social distancing and the rest is seen as a strategy with a time-limited utility - i.e. after a while people will get fed up with it - and they didn't want to "waste" it during the contain phase when it will be critical during the "delay" phase to avoid the NHS becoming overwhelmed.
It doesn’t mean much unless you do it as GDP per capita.
We might have had a bigger national income if we had Remained, but we’d also have had a larger population as well.
I appreciate that point is moot if net migration gets back up to c.350k net a year but so far it’s running at 230-280k per year.
What proportion of leave voters will still be backing the govt in ten years time if there another 2-3m new immigrants despite Brexit?
We need immigration because of our demographics not because of the EU. Politicians need to ensure it is far better managed, locally, economically and culturally, and explain to the public why it is needed.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
Alastair. I do worry for you.
I have no irrational hatred of immigrants but now we have left we must move on
I would not like to think you will end up like the Japanese soldier who remained in the jungle for 29 years after the war had ended refusing to believe it was over
“We must move on”.
Does “moving on” oblige us to simply ignore the plain fact that we have dumped a shit on our economy and are now borrowing from your grandchildren to mask the effects?
I am touched by your faith in our elders and betters. It is rare to find nowadays.
Just wait until the government finally realizes its policy is a huge, massively dangerous failure and announces that it'll be doing all the things it previously said were a bad idea. The faithful will undergo a flash of inspiration as bad becomes good and good becomes bad.
Which "bad ideas"?
So far the only "bad idea" dismissed is "take it on the chin and get it over with" - other things have been "not yet" rather than "never".
Well exactly. Edmund is wilfully misrepresenting what has been said to make what has been advised worse, pretending that options have been ruled out rather than that the timing is a judgement call. Its pathetic quite frankly - they might make the wrong call or already have made the wrong call without pretending people have been saying certain things should never happen.
The depressing thing is it was entirely predicted that such a lie would be uttered. It is very Trump like.
There we have it, the government can never be wrong, it can only ever be part of the way to its ultimate destination of being right.
The reason why this problem is kicking humanity's arse is because every adversary it's come into contact with has been two steps behind. Whatever the UK government does *today* won't start to show results for at least two weeks, which is a huge number in terms of the speed at which the threat is growing. Being right about stopping the spread at some unspecified future time is the same as being wrong.
The government is acting on the advice of scientific advisors.
It is not a case of "the government can never be wrong". Because in a problem of this magnitude, the government will be doing what it is told by its scientific advisors.
Scientific advisors of Tory Governments are not Tories, just as advisors of Labour Governments are not Labour.
Scientific advisors are independent scientists with career long expertise in their discipline, they have access to enormous resources in terms of computing, simulations, modelling. They do the job out of responsibility and duty and desire to help the country. The country, not the government.
They will know that "Whatever the UK government does *today* won't start to show results for at least two weeks". That is because they are experts, not morons.
Of course, experts can be wrong. If we had access to lots of data and modelling expertise, we could check their advice (I am sure that will be done after the event). But, for the moment we pretty much have to act on their advice. After all, there is no point in funding decades long research into epidemiology, if you ignore it at the critical moment you need it.
The experts are damn sight more likely to be right than someone mouthing platitudes or who keeps on posting obviously wanky and flawed graphs.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
Alastair. I do worry for you.
I have no irrational hatred of immigrants but now we have left we must move on
I would not like to think you will end up like the Japanese soldier who remained in the jungle for 29 years after the war had ended refusing to believe it was over
You cannot move on until you have adequately assessed the damage done and sought to mitigate it. Currently Leavers are planning on making the damage as great as they possibly can.
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?
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.
I disagree. I doubt there is anything that the Asian countries are doing that the U.K. has not considered and modelled in the original plan
Moreover the *last* thing you want to be doing right now is throwing new things into the mix “because it looks like it is working in Ruritania”. That will lead to confusion and mistakes.
You stick to the plan while keeping everything under review.
This is why you can have 45 and a half divisions queued up in an enormous traffic jam and nobody will stop it driving through the Ardennes.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.
The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone. The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so. Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.
We'll see.
In reality so far: The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century. The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.
What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?
Alternatively if the UK was doing so well in the EU why risk changing it dramatically?
Because Brexit was about far more than just economics.
Of course, but Philip was making an economic case based on two bits of economic data, that would be pointing to remain not leave. I was not trying to resolve the Brexit debate with a cheap one liner.
Mr. Meeks, whether or not it's possible to have rational reasons for wishing the UK to leave the EU is entirely relevant given your view of the most 'ardent', as you put it, Leavers.
"The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future."
I agree it's very unhelpful that the use of language such as 'treachery' and 'xenophobia' has proliferated. There are entirely reasonable arguments for the UK to retain membership of the EU or to leave it, and noisy fringe elements who consider one to be treason and the other to be racism do more harm than good to their own sides.
Mr. Jonathan, the behaviour of pro-EU types, particularly in the courts and Parliament, has led to the exact opposite of what they wanted. Instead of either remaining, or having a second referendum, or having the very soft May departure, there's a credible chance we now leave with no deal in place whatsoever.
More thinking and less mindless opposition from pro-EU MPs would've served their cause well. I remember Grieve bleating in the Commons that it was 'too late' when the Government backed down and gave him precisely what he wanted, and he voted against them anyway.
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.
Given that health services are overwhelmed when there are only a few tens of thousands of cases in a population of tens of millions, the figures don’t stack up for having ‘controlled’ outbreaks.
It is nevertheless the only plan we have.
Remember that it's the number of intensive care beds that is the critical point. One in seven of those hospitalised needs intensive care, and one in five of those with the virus needs hospital. Both wild guesses based on what data we have.
That means that the theoretical maximum number of carriers we can cope with at any one time is around 150,000.
Of course there are then lots of other considerations - on the upside, can more intensive care facilities be created quickly, how often will ICU beds be re-used, etc. On the downside, what other medical caseload will hospitals have, do we have the staff (net of the infected) to maintain services, etc.
You think there are 30000 spare beds in NHS England?
Bit early for sums Malc?
1/5 x 1/7 x 150,000 = 4,285
It will be horribly tight, but not quite as bad as that:
That is 4,300 for Covid19 stuff. ICUs are mostly full up anyway. AFAIK we do not have 4,300 spare ICU places waiting to be filled.
That is going to be the biggest challenge - how much of its 'normal' workload the NHS can somehow defer or outsource or put into limbo. And to what extent its normal workload reduces because of (or overlaps with) the virus workload.
As well as maintaining reasonable staffing levels with an epidemic on the loose.
For sure they will not be able to reduce current ICU and HDU which are the important ones, so there will be a handful of beds for those really sick and corridors at best for the majority of just sick ones. You usually sit waiting on a bed/trolley in queue for HDU/ICU beds they are not sitting idle very often.
In other news, I am starting to lose track, but think my trading profits since 24 Feb have now passed £10k; more than enough to pay for all the holidays I wont be taking.
On Covid-19, the government has generally done ok to date (it's early days yet). Yes, other courses of action are available but it's not obvious that they are better. Britain has the huge benefit of being a week or two behind the curve of other comparable countries. It can go to school on their experiences.
The next few months are going to be fairly grim. Get used to that idea. With the debatable exception of the excitable @eadric, we have yet to have a pb case of Covid-19. Any guesses on when we'll get our first one? This is not a sweepstake that any of us wants to be the winning horse in.
Trump now clearly shifting to a close the borders narrative banning flights from the EU having previously banned flights to the US from China and Iran to contain the spread of the virus in the USA
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?
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.
I disagree. I doubt there is anything that the Asian countries are doing that the U.K. has not considered and modelled in the original plan
Moreover the *last* thing you want to be doing right now is throwing new things into the mix “because it looks like it is working in Ruritania”. That will lead to confusion and mistakes.
You stick to the plan while keeping everything under review.
Sounds like our great war generals, they were good at sticking to the plan working or not, especially from their mansions as they supped the champagne and made a complete arse of things.
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.
Comment of the night above, cruelly cut off at the end of thread.
Even as I try to get across that what we already know gives an upper bound well below much of the catastrophising, the holding off on ready options to make the Contain phase easier confuses me and I wish they were implementing social distancing measures faster.
I expect the answer to MBE's question is that the social distancing and the rest is seen as a strategy with a time-limited utility - i.e. after a while people will get fed up with it - and they didn't want to "waste" it during the contain phase when it will be critical during the "delay" phase to avoid the NHS becoming overwhelmed.
It's like vaccines. The more effective they are, the less fear there is of the thing they're protecting against, and so they stop valuing them.
In other news, I am starting to lose track, but think my trading profits since 24 Feb have now passed £10k; more than enough to pay for all the holidays I wont be taking.
Slightly better than my £150K deficit, holidays not required.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
Brexit will be very damaging, but COVID-19 - and, more important - the reaction to it, will do much deeper, longer-lasting damage. A rational response to events at this time would be to extend the transition period. Unfortunately, though, that won’t happen.
The transition period ending also ensures tighter border control and an end to free movement from December
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.
On Covid-19, the government has generally done ok to date (it's early days yet). Yes, other courses of action are available but it's not obvious that they are better. Britain has the huge benefit of being a week or two behind the curve of other comparable countries. It can go to school on their experiences.
The next few months are going to be fairly grim. Get used to that idea. With the debatable exception of the excitable @eadric, we have yet to have a pb case of Covid-19. Any guesses on when we'll get our first one? This is not a sweepstake that any of us wants to be the winning horse in.
You only have to look at the timing and his temperament under any sort of pressure to see that the odds of eadric having had anything other than manflu are pretty small. He has managed to panic about both having had it and getting it, and is still panicking more than any other PB'er. Most people would want to keep quiet the shame of having wasted a lot of NHS time, but there we are.
Most of us seem to be well into social distancing already, reducing our chances...
On Covid-19, the government has generally done ok to date (it's early days yet). Yes, other courses of action are available but it's not obvious that they are better. Britain has the huge benefit of being a week or two behind the curve of other comparable countries. It can go to school on their experiences.
The next few months are going to be fairly grim. Get used to that idea. With the debatable exception of the excitable @eadric, we have yet to have a pb case of Covid-19. Any guesses on when we'll get our first one? This is not a sweepstake that any of us wants to be the winning horse in.
Some years ago Nadine said that her main source of polling news was PB
It seems to me that it is pretty pointless banning attendance of sporting events without restricting pubs, clubs, cinemas and theatres too.
That pretty much bankrupts the entire hospitality, leisure and domestic tourism sector. If the government wants to avoid that then it will need to do more than simply suspend business rates, provide an £3k cash grant and pay SSP for 14 days.
Trump at 2.04 for President, if he continues to drift to say 2.3/2.4 I think he's value.
I'm guessing the Hilary bettors are thinking she may be the only one of experience left standing by the summer.
Hillary lacks Biden's appeal with the white working class and black voters, if Hillary replaced him I make it a clear Trump re election rather than neck and neck with states like Pennsylvania sifting from lean Biden back to Trump
... the behaviour of pro-EU types, particularly in the courts and Parliament, has led to the exact opposite of what they wanted. Instead of either remaining, or having a second referendum, or having the very soft May departure, there's a credible chance we now leave with no deal in place whatsoever.
Then thing is, Mr Dancer, that if everything had been left to Leavers and no Remainer had ever voiced a glimmer of protest, then we would still have left anyway.
Remainers protests have had no effect. Brexit still happened because (gasp!!) the UK was sovereign all along. We could even have had our passports coloured blue if we had decided to reverse the Blessed Margaret's decision to go for red.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
Brexit will be very damaging, but COVID-19 - and, more important - the reaction to it, will do much deeper, longer-lasting damage. A rational response to events at this time would be to extend the transition period. Unfortunately, though, that won’t happen.
Brexit will have to be implemented in a time when the economy is weak and the government is having to pay off its Coronavirus debts. That changes things.
The same applies to the EU with the added serious problem of Italy
We have left and in the face of this economic disaster the EU and UK need to wrap this up this year
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.
Comment of the night above, cruelly cut off at the end of thread.
Even as I try to get across that what we already know gives an upper bound well below much of the catastrophising, the holding off on ready options to make the Contain phase easier confuses me and I wish they were implementing social distancing measures faster.
I expect the answer to MBE's question is that the social distancing and the rest is seen as a strategy with a time-limited utility - i.e. after a while people will get fed up with it - and they didn't want to "waste" it during the contain phase when it will be critical during the "delay" phase to avoid the NHS becoming overwhelmed.
Virtually no-one on here is thinking in terms of the covid 19 levels next winter as opposed to the spring and summer. The UK govt is. It means accepting a level of Covid 19 now, trying to control it so it doesnt overwhelm us, but building up some herd immunity.
Along with Ians answer, that is why many of the "obvious" measures being demanded are not part of the solution.
Minimise Covid 19 in spring/summer would need a different set of outcomes to minimising Covid 19 and its impact over the longer term. I am glad the govt is not just looking at short term headlines (for once!).
It seems to me that it is pretty pointless banning attendance of sporting events without restricting pubs, clubs, cinemas and theatres too.
That pretty much bankrupts the entire hospitality, leisure and domestic tourism sector. If the government wants to avoid that then it will need to do more than simply suspend business rates, provide an £3k cash grant and pay SSP for 14 days.
But bankrupting sports clubs and institutions is fine?
What concerns me most about the measures being put in place is that we don't want the economy to do well over the next few months. We want people to change their behaviour.
Comments
We might have had a bigger national income if we had Remained, but we’d also have had a larger population as well.
I appreciate that point is moot if net migration gets back up to c.350k net a year but so far it’s running at 230-280k per year.
The Italian government has accused the EU and its member states of being slow in coming to the country’s aid over the coronavirus epidemic.
As leaders held a summit by videoconference and agreed that up to 70% of Europeans could be infected by Covid-19, Italy’s ambassador to the EU complained of a lack of solidarity among member states.
Maurizio Massari said Brussels needed to “go beyond engagement and consultations” and devise “emergency actions that are quick, concrete and effective”.
A flashpoint has been the failure of member states to respond to a call by Italy for extra supplies of medical equipment, including masks.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/italy-criticises-eu-being-slow-help-coronavirus-epidemic
Meanwhile:
China sends experts, ventilators and masks to Italy
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-sends-experts-ventilators-and-masks-to-italy-7zs6wtwk9
Certainly we didn't do badly enough to have grown slower than the Eurozone in the last decade. We've grown faster than France and Germany in the last decade half of which was after the referendum.
The depressing thing is it was entirely predicted that such a lie would be uttered. It is very Trump like.
There might have been a far more rapid response to the testing disaster, which has gone unresolved for about a month.
And I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have pretended it was nothing to worry about until forced to by events.
Starting from when he becomes president next year ? We’ll see.
Probably a step up from “It will go away. Just stay calm. Everybody has to be vigilant . . . be calm. It’s really working out.”
Do Travel bans only become a bad idea when the twat in the White House does them?
Macron's assessment of it as 'brain dead' is probably more accurate than actually dead.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
There's a reason the answer to these questions is "not yet" not "never".
1/5 x 1/7 x 150,000 = 4,285
It will be horribly tight, but not quite as bad as that:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/03/icu-doctor-nhs-coronavirus-pandemic-hospitals
Trump at 2.04 for President, if he continues to drift to say 2.3/2.4 I think he's value.
Given Trump's policies (or lack of them) on Covid19, he could do the UK a favour by stopping the US pool of infection spreading here.
Will they have eaten it all by November?
Again, the Democrats have had 4 years to organise a decent contender.
Those who are just attacking and moaning vs those who are on the look out, quite reasonably, for if the government have made mistakes, are quite distinct. It's like distinguishing art and porn.
Brexit is a balls-up we have to live with unless Boris moves to EEA
https://xkcd.com/605/
Many of those who argued we should listen to experts on Brexit are now arguing we should not listen to experts on Coronavirus.
It shows that for many people, tribal party politics is all there is.
There is no objective comparison to what the UK would have done had it remained since we have no way of measuring that.
So what odds do give that the UK will outgrow the Eurozone in the third decade of this century then? For the third decade in a row that is. You must be pretty confident its not going to happen.
On current trends.
The reason why this problem is kicking humanity's arse is because every adversary it's come into contact with has been two steps behind. Whatever the UK government does *today* won't start to show results for at least two weeks, which is a huge number in terms of the speed at which the threat is growing. Being right about stopping the spread at some unspecified future time is the same as being wrong.
Even as I try to get across that what we already know gives an upper bound well below much of the catastrophising, the holding off on ready options to make the Contain phase easier confuses me and I wish they were implementing social distancing measures faster.
As well as maintaining reasonable staffing levels with an epidemic on the loose.
Moreover the *last* thing you want to be doing right now is throwing new things into the mix “because it looks like it is working in Ruritania”. That will lead to confusion and mistakes.
You stick to the plan while keeping everything under review.
I have no irrational hatred of immigrants but now we have left we must move on
I would not like to think you will end up like the Japanese soldier who remained in the jungle for 29 years after the war had ended refusing to believe it was over
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/visiting-the-uk-after-brexit
https://mobile.twitter.com/USPoliticsPoll/status/1237934245416439808
Perhaps you are used to English education where you make up any answer and get an A grade.
PS: Assume you think England has 26000 spare ordinary / HDU beds as well as 4.5K ICU beds. Just the other day they quoted average ICU with at least 75% occupancy in normal circumstances , so even on a good day less than 25% are available countrywide.
We need immigration because of our demographics not because of the EU. Politicians need to ensure it is far better managed, locally, economically and culturally, and explain to the public why it is needed.
(1) Some Remainers are still fighting the referendum result. Only a mild amusement because it's more a reason for pity.
(2) Covid19 is sending a few people neurotic. It's the end of the world.
(3) The Tories produce a Labour budget and Labour object.
(4) The world is becoming more Woke and the left starts to eat itself. Phillips is a racist, the feminists support the Patriarchy - kill them all.
Lighten up, lads and lassies, this time next year, you'll find other minor nuisances to bleat about.
Does “moving on” oblige us to simply ignore the plain fact that we have dumped a shit on our economy and are now borrowing from your grandchildren to mask the effects?
It is not a case of "the government can never be wrong". Because in a problem of this magnitude, the government will be doing what it is told by its scientific advisors.
Scientific advisors of Tory Governments are not Tories, just as advisors of Labour Governments are not Labour.
Scientific advisors are independent scientists with career long expertise in their discipline, they have access to enormous resources in terms of computing, simulations, modelling. They do the job out of responsibility and duty and desire to help the country. The country, not the government.
They will know that "Whatever the UK government does *today* won't start to show results for at least two weeks". That is because they are experts, not morons.
Of course, experts can be wrong. If we had access to lots of data and modelling expertise, we could check their advice (I am sure that will be done after the event). But, for the moment we pretty much have to act on their advice. After all, there is no point in funding decades long research into epidemiology, if you ignore it at the critical moment you need it.
The experts are damn sight more likely to be right than someone mouthing platitudes or who keeps on posting obviously wanky and flawed graphs.
"The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future."
I agree it's very unhelpful that the use of language such as 'treachery' and 'xenophobia' has proliferated. There are entirely reasonable arguments for the UK to retain membership of the EU or to leave it, and noisy fringe elements who consider one to be treason and the other to be racism do more harm than good to their own sides.
Mr. Jonathan, the behaviour of pro-EU types, particularly in the courts and Parliament, has led to the exact opposite of what they wanted. Instead of either remaining, or having a second referendum, or having the very soft May departure, there's a credible chance we now leave with no deal in place whatsoever.
More thinking and less mindless opposition from pro-EU MPs would've served their cause well. I remember Grieve bleating in the Commons that it was 'too late' when the Government backed down and gave him precisely what he wanted, and he voted against them anyway.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18250949.horror-show-damning-scottish-exam-report-unveiled/
You usually sit waiting on a bed/trolley in queue for HDU/ICU beds they are not sitting idle very often.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D5r8xwu0l8w
The next few months are going to be fairly grim. Get used to that idea. With the debatable exception of the excitable @eadric, we have yet to have a pb case of Covid-19. Any guesses on when we'll get our first one? This is not a sweepstake that any of us wants to be the winning horse in.
https://twitter.com/GrandPrixDiary/status/1238010517555490817
The government hasn’t published its plan for coronavirus so people are using this as a proxy
Most of us seem to be well into social distancing already, reducing our chances...
Remainers protests have had no effect. Brexit still happened because (gasp!!) the UK was sovereign all along. We could even have had our passports coloured blue if we had decided to reverse the Blessed Margaret's decision to go for red.
We have left and in the face of this economic disaster the EU and UK need to wrap this up this year
Along with Ians answer, that is why many of the "obvious" measures being demanded are not part of the solution.
Minimise Covid 19 in spring/summer would need a different set of outcomes to minimising Covid 19 and its impact over the longer term. I am glad the govt is not just looking at short term headlines (for once!).
What concerns me most about the measures being put in place is that we don't want the economy to do well over the next few months. We want people to change their behaviour.