So you are going to basically shut off Africa permanently? I am afraid this is pie in the sky stuff.
I am confident that they will be able to control the disease there eventually too.
But as I mentioned a corona virus test before boarding would have to be in place otherwise.
It isn't going to happen in the next decade if not longer. Not without herd immunity which is exactly what you are opposing.
If is a choice between multiple deaths for some with potentially life changing illness for the rest of us and having restrictions to travel to and from Africa for a decade then I would choose the latter, as I think would most people.
This is without considering that it could be us shut off from the outside world if we don't eliminate the disease.
You won't have that choice. Just as with Trump's idiotic fly ban on the EU, people will always find ways around it. And what about all the refugees? Are you going to start shooting them to stop them getting into Europe? (Note I am not making any claims on refugees being infected, just pointing out the obvious conclusions of your strategy)
As long as the virus is endemic somewhere in the world your strategy fails. We either need a vaccine or we need herd immunity. Those are the only two ways we are going to ever get back to anything approaching normal life.
Give people a CV test from infected areas before travelling. It's perfectly possible.
Pay to set up safe areas for refugees next to the countries they are fleeing from. Something that should have been done years ago. If not we can have quarantined areas set up here for exactly that purpose.
Herd immunity is useless once the virus mutates, which it will.
It's not 'useless', and you're awfully opinionated for someone on their 5th post.
Well I am happy to be corrected, but my limited understanding it that with viruses you only gain an immunity to one strain and when it mutates you can still get infected. So like the flu for example.
I didn't realise there was a threshold for posts before opinions are encouraged.
Your last sentence did make me laugh out loud
It's certainly an interesting take that you need to reach a certain post threshold before you can express an opinion.
And after a certain later threshold you know what most people are going to say before they post....
I'm told that China is re-opening. Even Hubei/Wuhan
a) they need to get the economy moving again (and there is going to be a huge demand for things like medical supplies, which cynically big business to be had and from a humanitarian perspective to try and help save as many people as possible).
b) they are now in full propaganda mode, the great leader, the party, the nation have defeated this disease.
Which is when they will be at their greatest risk. As will true information on whether this fires back up again. If they claim it hasn't, will that put pressure on Boris to change tactics?
I am not sure the British public will accept an app that spies on your every movement and exclude you from society if the AI says you are a potential carrier.
We are in the middle of a profound crisis and PB is debating Sky Sports subscriptions.
Never change PB.
Just another issue in a never ending line of them
Nothing is going to be the same post covid 19
WFH will become the norm for many,
Many companies will have been forced over the technology hurdle for employees to work at home and will embrace it afterwards. I supsect that many other companies will look at their drop in productivity in the next month and use that as an argument against it. How honest they will be about productivity lost to skyving, and how much to the economic hit of the crisis is another matter.
I also worry about companies starting to insist that employees work much more at home, and these employees feel forced into turning a spare room into a work room, or to rent a 2 bedroom flat rather than a 1 bedroom flat, or devoting 4 square meters of their shared house bedroom to their work. I made the conscious choice to rent a flat with a room I can call an office, in part beause I can afford to. Many others are not in a position to do that, especially in SE England where rents and house prices are so high.
All my colleagues who regularly WFH have turned bedrooms, garages or sheds into offices.
As I say many of us choose to turn a bedroom into an office etc. However, a 23 year old with a modest bedroom in a 4 person shared house will find it much more of a burden to work 20+ hours at home than a 55 year old whose eldest daughter graduated last year.
Buy shares in Regus. Business will at the very least be highly tempted to reduce corporate office space after this. But teams will still need to meet, individuals like you describe will want to work not just at home...
Have looked at using Regus a few times in the past but they are very much more expensive than smaller similar firms for little or no benefit. They seem busy though so works for them I guess.
So you are going to basically shut off Africa permanently? I am afraid this is pie in the sky stuff.
I am confident that they will be able to control the disease there eventually too.
But as I mentioned a corona virus test before boarding would have to be in place otherwise.
It isn't going to happen in the next decade if not longer. Not without herd immunity which is exactly what you are opposing.
If is a choice between multiple deaths for some with potentially life changing illness for the rest of us and having restrictions to travel to and from Africa for a decade then I would choose the latter, as I think would most people.
This is without considering that it could be us shut off from the outside world if we don't eliminate the disease.
You won't have that choice. Just as with Trump's idiotic fly ban on the EU, people will always find ways around it. And what about all the refugees? Are you going to start shooting them to stop them getting into Europe? (Note I am not making any claims on refugees being infected, just pointing out the obvious conclusions of your strategy)
As long as the virus is endemic somewhere in the world your strategy fails. We either need a vaccine or we need herd immunity. Those are the only two ways we are going to ever get back to anything approaching normal life.
Give people a CV test from infected areas before travelling. It's perfectly possible.
Pay to set up safe areas for refugees next to the countries they are fleeing from. Something that should have been done years ago. If not we can have quarantined areas set up here for exactly that purpose.
Herd immunity is useless once the virus mutates, which it will.
It's not 'useless', and you're awfully opinionated for someone on their 5th post.
Well I am happy to be corrected, but my limited understanding it that with viruses you only gain an immunity to one strain and when it mutates you can still get infected. So like the flu for example.
I didn't realise there was a threshold for posts before opinions are encouraged.
Your last sentence did make me laugh out loud
It's certainly an interesting take that you need to reach a certain post threshold before you can express an opinion.
And after a certain later threshold you know what most people are going to say before they post....
As it happens I read the text of a post yesterday before I saw who posted it and I knew who it was without needing to look.
So you are going to basically shut off Africa permanently? I am afraid this is pie in the sky stuff.
I am confident that they will be able to control the disease there eventually too.
But as I mentioned a corona virus test before boarding would have to be in place otherwise.
It isn't going to happen in the next decade if not longer. Not without herd immunity which is exactly what you are opposing.
If is a choice between multiple deaths for some with potentially life changing illness for the rest of us and having restrictions to travel to and from Africa for a decade then I would choose the latter, as I think would most people.
This is without considering that it could be us shut off from the outside world if we don't eliminate the disease.
You won't have that choice. Just as with Trump's idiotic fly ban on the EU, people will always find ways around it. And what about all the refugees? Are you going to start shooting them to stop them getting into Europe? (Note I am not making any claims on refugees being infected, just pointing out the obvious conclusions of your strategy)
As long as the virus is endemic somewhere in the world your strategy fails. We either need a vaccine or we need herd immunity. Those are the only two ways we are going to ever get back to anything approaching normal life.
Give people a CV test from infected areas before travelling. It's perfectly possible.
Pay to set up safe areas for refugees next to the countries they are fleeing from. Something that should have been done years ago. If not we can have quarantined areas set up here for exactly that purpose.
Herd immunity is useless once the virus mutates, which it will.
It's not 'useless', and you're awfully opinionated for someone on their 5th post.
Well I am happy to be corrected, but my limited understanding it that with viruses you only gain an immunity to one strain and when it mutates you can still get infected. So like the flu for example.
I didn't realise there was a threshold for posts before opinions are encouraged.
The virus does mutate (indeed RNA viruses mutate very rapidly), but at least some of the antibodies you have built up as a result of the first exposure will help temper the response to subsequent incidences if you are exposed to a similar strain in future. Without this, we would all succumb to a serious bout of flu every year.
Well that is somewhat reassuring, but are they certain corona viruses behave in the same way as for example flu in this manner?
I believe with dengue fever it is actually more dangerous to have developed one immunity as it actively impedes recovery from different strains as your body gets tricked into producing the wrong cells to fight the disease.
Have been sent a document, 'Temperature and latitude analysis to predict potential spread and seasonality for COVID-19', produced by a team led from the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine.
The abstract reads:A significant number of infectious diseases display seasonal patterns in their incidence, including human coronaviruses. We hypothesize that SARS-CoV-2 does as well. To date, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has established significant community spread in cities and regions only along a narrow east west distribution roughly along the 30-50 N” corridor at consistently similar weather patterns (5-11OC and 47-79% humidity). There has been a lack of significant community establishment in expected locations that are based only on population proximity and extensive population interaction through travel. We have proposed a simplified model that shows a zone at increased risk for COVID-19 spread. Using weather modeling, it may be possible to predict the regions most likely to be at higher risk of significant community spread of COVID-19 in the upcoming weeks, allowing for concentration of public health efforts on surveillance and containment.
Seems to explain why Singapore and Thailand are doing quite well, although Malaysia has more cases, apparently all related to the one gathering.
Buy shares in Regus. Business will at the very least be highly tempted to reduce corporate office space after this. But teams will still need to meet, individuals like you describe will want to work not just at home...
Have looked at using Regus a few times in the past but they are very much more expensive than smaller similar firms for little or no benefit. They seem busy though so works for them I guess.
Other office firms are available...! And I suspect after this a lot of new players, or clinging to life little local business centres becoming more popular.
Buy shares in Regus. Business will at the very least be highly tempted to reduce corporate office space after this. But teams will still need to meet, individuals like you describe will want to work not just at home...
Have looked at using Regus a few times in the past but they are very much more expensive than smaller similar firms for little or no benefit. They seem busy though so works for them I guess.
Other office firms are available...! And I suspect after this a lot of new players, or clinging to life little local business centres becoming more popular.
Have been sent a document, 'Temperature and latitude analysis to predict potential spread and seasonality for COVID-19', produced by a team led from the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine.
The abstract reads:A significant number of infectious diseases display seasonal patterns in their incidence, including human coronaviruses. We hypothesize that SARS-CoV-2 does as well. To date, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has established significant community spread in cities and regions only along a narrow east west distribution roughly along the 30-50 N” corridor at consistently similar weather patterns (5-11OC and 47-79% humidity). There has been a lack of significant community establishment in expected locations that are based only on population proximity and extensive population interaction through travel. We have proposed a simplified model that shows a zone at increased risk for COVID-19 spread. Using weather modeling, it may be possible to predict the regions most likely to be at higher risk of significant community spread of COVID-19 in the upcoming weeks, allowing for concentration of public health efforts on surveillance and containment.
Seems to explain why Singapore and Thailand are doing quite well, although Malaysia has more cases, apparently all related to the one gathering.
What a disappointment. With no Premier League football today I thought the next best thing was to be part of the panic buyers at my local Waitrose. Well there were only 3/4 other shoppers and almost all the shelves were full. What's happening to this country?
Morrison’s in Burntwood was the opposite. I went in at 8 to beat the panic buyers. Car park was full and the shelves were half empty. All Fray Bentos pies and most tinned fish had vanished. Two packets of yeast left. Hardly any soap. Bloody hoarders had barely left enough for me to fill two shopping trollies to meet my own simple needs.
Sainsbury's today -- no tissues, toilet rolls or kitchen rolls. No soap. No frozen fish. Not much paracetamol and no aspirin or ibuprofen. No Coke. Probably around twice as many shoppers as last Saturday. ETA no Dettol.
Allegedly several members of the cabinet bagged all the coke.
My wife has closed her practice down and is home all day so I'm basically living in the workshop. After a great deal of thought and analysis I am ready to announce my Covid-19 celebrity death pool entries:
Barry Humphries (he's about 1,000 years old but is highly sociable) Camilla (shakes 100 hands/day and smokes 200 fags/day) David Mitchell (wildcard/wishful thinking)
What do we want, large gathering cancelled and schools closed because the government are trying to kill us....where are you now, in a large crowd in Tescos with 100s of people touching everything.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
Have been sent a document, 'Temperature and latitude analysis to predict potential spread and seasonality for COVID-19', produced by a team led from the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine.
The abstract reads:A significant number of infectious diseases display seasonal patterns in their incidence, including human coronaviruses. We hypothesize that SARS-CoV-2 does as well. To date, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has established significant community spread in cities and regions only along a narrow east west distribution roughly along the 30-50 N” corridor at consistently similar weather patterns (5-11OC and 47-79% humidity). There has been a lack of significant community establishment in expected locations that are based only on population proximity and extensive population interaction through travel. We have proposed a simplified model that shows a zone at increased risk for COVID-19 spread. Using weather modeling, it may be possible to predict the regions most likely to be at higher risk of significant community spread of COVID-19 in the upcoming weeks, allowing for concentration of public health efforts on surveillance and containment.
Seems to explain why Singapore and Thailand are doing quite well, although Malaysia has more cases, apparently all related to the one gathering.
If anyone's interested I can send a link.
If at stopped at 50N that would be great for the UK!
So you are going to basically shut off Africa permanently? I am afraid this is pie in the sky stuff.
I am confident that they will be able to control the disease there eventually too.
But as I mentioned a corona virus test before boarding would have to be in place otherwise.
It isn't going to happen in the next decade if not longer. Not without herd immunity which is exactly what you are opposing.
If is a choice between multiple deaths for some with potentially life changing illness for the rest of us and having restrictions to travel to and from Africa for a decade then I would choose the latter, as I think would most people.
This is without considering that it could be us shut off from the outside world if we don't eliminate the disease.
You won't have that choice. Just as with Trump's idiotic fly ban on the EU, people will always find ways around it. And what about all the refugees? Are you going to start shooting them to stop them getting into Europe? (Note I am not making any claims on refugees being infected, just pointing out the obvious conclusions of your strategy)
As long as the virus is endemic somewhere in the world your strategy fails. We either need a vaccine or we need herd immunity. Those are the only two ways we are going to ever get back to anything approaching normal life.
Give people a CV test from infected areas before travelling. It's perfectly possible.
Pay to set up safe areas for refugees next to the countries they are fleeing from. Something that should have been done years ago. If not we can have quarantined areas set up here for exactly that purpose.
Herd immunity is useless once the virus mutates, which it will.
It's not 'useless', and you're awfully opinionated for someone on their 5th post.
Says the guy whose opinions include that of Jo Cox’s murder being a false flag operation. A period of silence from you would be welcomed by many.
Well that is somewhat reassuring, but are they certain corona viruses behave in the same way as for example flu in this manner?
I believe with dengue fever it is actually more dangerous to have developed one immunity as it actively impedes recovery from different strains as your body gets tricked into producing the wrong cells to fight the disease.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
"Italy’s struggle with coronavirus threatens all of the eurozone Emergency measures are essential but carry risks for the multitude of small, family-run businesses TONY BARBER"
Sainsburys in Keighley didn't have a single bog roll on the shelves this morning. And only a few packets of more expensive pasta. Woman on the checkout said they'd been busy since 8am. Organic avocados were readily available however.
Then passing the local Post Office on the way home a chap was just leaving carrying a 4-pack of bog roll. Shop local for a clean bum.
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
I'm told that China is re-opening. Even Hubei/Wuhan
a) they need to get the economy moving again (and there is going to be a huge demand for things like medical supplies, which cynically big business to be had and from a humanitarian perspective to try and help save as many people as possible).
b) they are now in full propaganda mode, the great leader, the party, the nation have defeated this disease.
I don't blame them. If they HAVE virtually defeated it, they deserve all the credit they can get..
They would however be wise to reopen very slowly and see what happens, for all the reasons that others here have posted.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
Time for the West to stand up to the Chinese Communist government
It is time for the West to stand up to all authoritarian governments, but we don't need to embrace conspiracy theories to do it. Tobias Ellwood is revealing himself as an idiot.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
I agree with that sentiment, but the decision has been made.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
I'm told that China is re-opening. Even Hubei/Wuhan
a) they need to get the economy moving again (and there is going to be a huge demand for things like medical supplies, which cynically big business to be had and from a humanitarian perspective to try and help save as many people as possible).
b) they are now in full propaganda mode, the great leader, the party, the nation have defeated this disease.
I don't blame them. If they HAVE virtually defeated it, they deserve all the credit they can get..
They would however be wise to reopen very slowly and see what happens, for all the reasons that others here have posted.
I don't think even they think they have defeated it. It has been widely reported they are prepping for further outbreaks and likely return next winter. Although they have wound down the sports stadium temporary hospitals, they are still expanding capacities, building apps and other tech.
However, I believe they think that a) they can use their state surveillance power to monitor upticks and better control it than the west and b) are more than happy to extend their move fast and break stuff approach to things like vaccines / treatments.
And in the short term, with the death of the whistle-blower doctor and the total implosion of the system, the party were under pressure and now it is important for them to re-establish the narrative.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
Time for the West to stand up to the Chinese Communist government
It is time for the West to stand up to all authoritarian governments, but we don't need to embrace conspiracy theories to do it. Tobias Ellwood is revealing himself as an idiot.
Perhaps its time for the West to find some cohesive values it believes in itself before trying to influence other countries to change. There are elements of authoritarianism at the centre of many western governments including ours, the US and in the EU as well. Trying to influence others when deeply divided internally is unlikely to make much progress.
Mrs Gadfly and I are both in our 60s with underlying chronic health issues and our 3 teacher children are entirely reliant upon us to look after our pre-school grandchildren whilst they're at work.
We are in an incredibly difficult position.
Sympathies - that's really difficult. Without knowing the details it's hard to advise, but have you considered all the otherwise unthinkable options? Might the kids be OK on their own in the parents' homes, with your number to call if they get in difficulty? A lot of kids are much more capable than people think. Might the schools accept your children having emergency days off in rotation? Or, and I don't like saying this, could they pull sickies for a few days each?
Thanks Nick. Our 3 grandchildren are aged 27 months and less, but I do think your rotational emergency days off or sickies idea may be a way to get us through to the Easter holidays at least!
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
My wife has closed her practice down and is home all day so I'm basically living in the workshop*. After a great deal of thought and analysis I am ready to announce my Covid-19 celebrity death pool entries:
Barry Humphries (he's about 1,000 years old but is highly sociable) Camilla (shakes 100 hands/day and smokes 200 fags/day) David Mitchell (wildcard/wishful thinking)
My wife has closed her practice down and is home all day so I'm basically living in the workshop*. After a great deal of thought and analysis I am ready to announce my Covid-19 celebrity death pool entries:
Barry Humphries (he's about 1,000 years old but is highly sociable) Camilla (shakes 100 hands/day and smokes 200 fags/day) David Mitchell (wildcard/wishful thinking)
Resisting the temptation to play for now.
*Doesn’t she allow you in the house ?
One of the young arseholes in office wanted to run a sweepstake about first colleague to die of it.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Well that is somewhat reassuring, but are they certain corona viruses behave in the same way as for example flu in this manner?
I believe with dengue fever it is actually more dangerous to have developed one immunity as it actively impedes recovery from different strains as your body gets tricked into producing the wrong cells to fight the disease.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
One this worth noting is that since this virus makes you infective before you get symptoms it strongly reduces the evolutionary pressure to become more mild.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
And, as observed above, I came in close contact with far more people than I probably would going to a 50k football match.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
My wife has closed her practice down and is home all day so I'm basically living in the workshop. After a great deal of thought and analysis I am ready to announce my Covid-19 celebrity death pool entries:
Barry Humphries (he's about 1,000 years old but is highly sociable) Camilla (shakes 100 hands/day and smokes 200 fags/day) David Mitchell (wildcard/wishful thinking)
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
And, as observed above, I came in close contact with far more people than I probably would going to a 50k football match.
Bet you didn’t try to high five any of them, though.
Sainsburys in Keighley didn't have a single bog roll on the shelves this morning. And only a few packets of more expensive pasta. Woman on the checkout said they'd been busy since 8am. Organic avocados were readily available however.
Then passing the local Post Office on the way home a chap was just leaving carrying a 4-pack of bog roll. Shop local for a clean bum.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
You can make sauerkraut from fresh produce. Lasted the entire length of Cook's voyage in a barrel, and kept the crew healthy.
Edit: the sauerkraut was in a barrel, not the voyage.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
My wife has closed her practice down and is home all day so I'm basically living in the workshop*. After a great deal of thought and analysis I am ready to announce my Covid-19 celebrity death pool entries:
Barry Humphries (he's about 1,000 years old but is highly sociable) Camilla (shakes 100 hands/day and smokes 200 fags/day) David Mitchell (wildcard/wishful thinking)
Resisting the temptation to play for now.
*Doesn’t she allow you in the house ?
Yes, but a functional marriage cannot be built on being in the same room and talking to each other all day. I am enjoying the more or less non stop cooking that's going on.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
Perhaps the view of the advisors is that delay is impossible, or risks moving the peak of the outbreak into the winter?
The third wave statement confused me. I think that's referring to an additional wave after lockdown restrictions are removed, rather than talking about seasonality? But I may have misinterpreted what you wrote.
Time for the West to stand up to the Chinese Communist government
It is time for the West to stand up to all authoritarian governments, but we don't need to embrace conspiracy theories to do it. Tobias Ellwood is revealing himself as an idiot.
Perhaps its time for the West to find some cohesive values it believes in itself before trying to influence other countries to change. There are elements of authoritarianism at the centre of many western governments including ours, the US and in the EU as well. Trying to influence others when deeply divided internally is unlikely to make much progress.
I am the first to criticize authoritarian leanings at home but to pretend these are anywhere comparable to the level of government abuse in China, Russia etc. Is just ridiculous.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
I'd be more worried about the pin pad.
Absolutely.
I don't envy the behavioural insight team trying to model what irrational things people will do in their panic.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
I'd be more worried about the pin pad.
Absolutely.
I don't envy the behavioural insight team trying to model what irrational things people will do in their panic.
The advice is easy though - wash your hands after touching something others will have touched.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.
An actually intelligent idea would be to cook and freeze home made meals. That way, if/when you get ill, the microwave will be your friend.
Sainsburys in Keighley didn't have a single bog roll on the shelves this morning. And only a few packets of more expensive pasta. Woman on the checkout said they'd been busy since 8am. Organic avocados were readily available however.
Then passing the local Post Office on the way home a chap was just leaving carrying a 4-pack of bog roll. Shop local for a clean bum.
I think there are some dramatic limits to free movement around the country about to be According to what RTVE has been able to know, the restriction of movements that the state of alarm entails -whose measures will detail Pedro Sánchez from 3:00 pm- will have some exceptions such as the purchase of basic necessities and pharmacies, the care of the elderly, assistance to health centers, hospitals and work centers, among others.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.
It’s a bit like the herd behaviour before Christmas, except this time there was still fresh sage on the shelves. (From Italy, incidentally.)
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.
An actually intelligent idea would be to cook and freeze home made meals. That way, if/when you get ill, the microwave will be your friend.
That is a very sensible idea. Again, I would hope the government would be messaging this.
They really need ads having a checklist of essentials from drugs to steps to make life easier.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
Perhaps the view of the advisors is that delay is impossible, or risks moving the peak of the outbreak into the winter?
The third wave statement confused me. I think that's referring to an additional wave after lockdown restrictions are removed, rather than talking about seasonality? But I may have misinterpreted what you wrote.
Well it is clearly possible to delay it as China have shown, but it is weighing up whether it is worth it compared to the economic cost.
They may be to contain this with one big lockdown, followed by several smaller lockdowns that eliminate the disease eventually. We will be able to see if it works and adjust our policy accordingly.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
The Government's policy isn't based on killing large numbers of people this summer. It explicitly isn't. It is relying on large numbers of people catching the virus. But generally those who will survive it, and during a period when the NHS has capacity. There is no "precautionary" approach on this. If treatments and/or vaccines were advanced by winter then we will still benefit from it. We will still be trying to build in extra winter capacity.
But we hopefully will have an added advantage of a measure of herd immunity. It is just wrong to suggest that the risks are all on the Government approach.
And if it does look like even under the current approach the NHS can't cope in summer there will no doubt be a ramping up of clamp down measures.
Sebastian Payne @SebastianEPayne · 15m He didn’t say that and it’s dangerous to spread lies in a national crisis 😡 . This tweet should be deleted immediately. Quote Tweet Carole Cadwalladr @carolecadwalla · 17h Director of World Health Organisation: Britain’s strategy is ‘wrong & dangerous’
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.
It’s a bit like the herd behaviour before Christmas, except this time there was still fresh sage on the shelves. (From Italy, incidentally.)
What do we want, large gathering cancelled and schools closed because the government are trying to kill us....where are you now, in a large crowd in Tescos with 100s of people touching everything.
Sebastian Payne @SebastianEPayne · 15m He didn’t say that and it’s dangerous to spread lies in a national crisis 😡 . This tweet should be deleted immediately. Quote Tweet Carole Cadwalladr @carolecadwalla · 17h Director of World Health Organisation: Britain’s strategy is ‘wrong & dangerous’
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
Perhaps the view of the advisors is that delay is impossible, or risks moving the peak of the outbreak into the winter?
The third wave statement confused me. I think that's referring to an additional wave after lockdown restrictions are removed, rather than talking about seasonality? But I may have misinterpreted what you wrote.
Well it is clearly possible to delay it as China have shown, but it is weighing up whether it is worth it compared to the economic cost.
They may be to contain this with one big lockdown, followed by several smaller lockdowns that eliminate the disease eventually. We will be able to see if it works and adjust our policy accordingly.
They can't exactly eliminate it if it continues all over the rest of the world.
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.
An actually intelligent idea would be to cook and freeze home made meals. That way, if/when you get ill, the microwave will be your friend.
That's what I have done. I have about 30 home made meals in the freezer. Spag bol, thick chicken stew, thai green curry. Plus a large iberica ham which will last another 10 days, washed down with ice cold fino. Plenty of spaghetti and rice. Feeling fine on day five. Just missing the exercise and fresh air.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
Perhaps the view of the advisors is that delay is impossible, or risks moving the peak of the outbreak into the winter?
The third wave statement confused me. I think that's referring to an additional wave after lockdown restrictions are removed, rather than talking about seasonality? But I may have misinterpreted what you wrote.
Well it is clearly possible to delay it as China have shown, but it is weighing up whether it is worth it compared to the economic cost.
They may be to contain this with one big lockdown, followed by several smaller lockdowns that eliminate the disease eventually. We will be able to see if it works and adjust our policy accordingly.
The measures China used were extraordinary. Could you imagine seeing apartments being welded shut in the UK?
On your point about the multiple lockdowns. Perhaps the modeling suggests that is a worse outcome than a single outbreak?
Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.
In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes
The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?
Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.
And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.
You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.
An actually intelligent idea would be to cook and freeze home made meals. That way, if/when you get ill, the microwave will be your friend.
That's what I have done. I have about 30 home made meals in the freezer. Spag bol, thick chicken stew, thai green curry. Plus a large iberica ham which will last another 10 days, washed down with ice cold fino. Plenty of spaghetti and rice. Feeling fine on day five. Just missing the exercise and fresh air.
Sounds great...can we all come around to yours for our tea?
If you hadn't heard of him before, W John Edmunds has a very impressive career - one of the top economic epidemiologists around, former head of economics and modelling at the Health Protection Agency (now PHE) with extensive research into pandemic influenza which is a good preparation for this crisis.
He was very impressive - the funniest part was Tomas the motivational speaker kept touching his face......and in the end admitted that the ultimate solution is herd immunity - but didn't explain how perpetual lockdown would achieve that.....their conversation is well worth watching. Calm, precise, deliberate vs emotional histrionics.
He doesn't sound or look like a stereotypical egghead, but I once went to a talk by Edmunds where he had a brainfreeze and then spent several minutes unpicking what he'd just said/done in one of those horrific moments of self-doubt all public speakers dread. The contrast between the innocuously simple detail he had got tripped up by, and his obvious intellectual capacity when handling the rest of the material, reminded me of bygone uni lectures by internationally esteemed mathematicians who'd surprisingly often tie themselves in knots over mangled basic algebra when at the chalkboard. (That was a couple of decades ago, before Beamer existed, so I suspect their modern equivalents just whack on a slideshow and their students assume they're infallible.) That's the moment that truly qualified Edmunds as a "proper boffin", in my eyes at least. Though given their presentational eccentricities I would have dreaded any of my old maths professors being put anywhere in front of a camera - let alone to defend an epoch-defining life-and-death policy!
I did watch that Channel 4 interview somewhat on the edge of my seat, just in case the pressure of the cameras or the unconventional nature of his co-interviewee might trigger an unbearable-to-watch brain-hiccup, but he sailed through, unfazed and measured.
If Edmunds ever turns round and says "I cannot support the government's policy announcements, they are no longer grounded in the evidence" that would alarm me ten thousand times more than the recent protests of Richard Horton (Lancet editor) or John Ashton (until recently President of the Faculty of Public Health). I fear to the general public that an expert is an expert is an expert, and if they hold a prestigious title all the better regardless of their biases and what relevance their expertise actually holds to the problem at hand, but an expert whose views chime with mine has qualifications worth far more than an expert whose views I don't like.
John is a really good guy. I only met him a couple of times in my time at LSHTM - he was far too busy for the mundane committees and stuff I was involved in - but he was seriously impressive. So glad that we fought so hard to protect his budget
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
The Government's policy isn't based on killing large numbers of people this summer. It explicitly isn't. It is relying on large numbers of people catching the virus. But generally those who will survive it, and during a period when the NHS has capacity. There is no "precautionary" approach on this. If treatments and/or vaccines were advanced by winter then we will still benefit from it. We will still be trying to build in extra winter capacity.
But we hopefully will have an added advantage of a measure of herd immunity. It is just wrong to suggest that the risks are all on the Government approach.
And if it does look like even under the current approach the NHS can't cope in summer there will no doubt be a ramping up of clamp down measures.
I don't think just having a large proportion of people surviving the disease is something to aim for.
What about those who are disabled from having permanently damaged lungs? What about other currently unknown long term effects?
We are lucky as we have several countries ahead of us showing us whether their methods will work and whether we should copy them or not.
Sebastian Payne @SebastianEPayne · 15m He didn’t say that and it’s dangerous to spread lies in a national crisis 😡 . This tweet should be deleted immediately. Quote Tweet Carole Cadwalladr @carolecadwalla · 17h Director of World Health Organisation: Britain’s strategy is ‘wrong & dangerous’
Sebastian Payne @SebastianEPayne · 15m He didn’t say that and it’s dangerous to spread lies in a national crisis 😡 . This tweet should be deleted immediately. Quote Tweet Carole Cadwalladr @carolecadwalla · 17h Director of World Health Organisation: Britain’s strategy is ‘wrong & dangerous’
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
The Government's policy isn't based on killing large numbers of people this summer. It explicitly isn't. It is relying on large numbers of people catching the virus. But generally those who will survive it, and during a period when the NHS has capacity. There is no "precautionary" approach on this. If treatments and/or vaccines were advanced by winter then we will still benefit from it. We will still be trying to build in extra winter capacity.
But we hopefully will have an added advantage of a measure of herd immunity. It is just wrong to suggest that the risks are all on the Government approach.
And if it does look like even under the current approach the NHS can't cope in summer there will no doubt be a ramping up of clamp down measures.
I don't think just having a large proportion of people surviving the disease is something to aim for.
What about those who are disabled from having permanently damaged lungs? What about other currently unknown long term effects?
We are lucky as we have several countries ahead of us showing us whether their methods will work and whether we should copy them or not.
Stop panicking and grow up. There isn’t any way forward that avoids some bad news.
The Spanish government is to put the country under lockdown as part of its state of emergency measures meant to combat the coronavirus, several media including El Mundo and Cadena Ser have reported.
The government is expected to say that all Spaniards must stay home except to buy food or drugs, go to the hospital, go to work or other emergencies, El Mundo said.
So you are going to basically shut off Africa permanently? I am afraid this is pie in the sky stuff.
I am confident that they will be able to control the disease there eventually too.
But as I mentioned a corona virus test before boarding would have to be in place otherwise.
It isn't going to happen in the next decade if not longer. Not without herd immunity which is exactly what you are opposing.
If is a choice between multiple deaths for some with potentially life changing illness for the rest of us and having restrictions to travel to and from Africa for a decade then I would choose the latter, as I think would most people.
This is without considering that it could be us shut off from the outside world if we don't eliminate the disease.
You won't have that choice. Just as with Trump's idiotic fly ban on the EU, people will always find ways around it. And what about all the refugees? Are you going to start shooting them to stop them getting into Europe? (Note I am not making any claims on refugees being infected, just pointing out the obvious conclusions of your strategy)
As long as the virus is endemic somewhere in the world your strategy fails. We either need a vaccine or we need herd immunity. Those are the only two ways we are going to ever get back to anything approaching normal life.
Give people a CV test from infected areas before travelling. It's perfectly possible.
Pay to set up safe areas for refugees next to the countries they are fleeing from. Something that should have been done years ago. If not we can have quarantined areas set up here for exactly that purpose.
Herd immunity is useless once the virus mutates, which it will.
It's not 'useless', and you're awfully opinionated for someone on their 5th post.
Well I am happy to be corrected, but my limited understanding it that with viruses you only gain an immunity to one strain and when it mutates you can still get infected. So like the flu for example. Loo I didn't realise there was a threshold for posts before opinions are encouraged.
I'm glad you're happy to be corrected - good to see a poster downthread has done just that.
There is no threshold on posts to 'have an opinion', but it is quite unusual to express it at length in very decided terms when you're new to posting. Unfortunately, on PB, some of our less hinged members are on their 4th or 5th username, having been banned for one reason or another, and at least one member has several going all at once. It is not at all unlikely that this person would launch yet another persona to support his own views on what has become quite a heated debate here. So forgive me for being suspicious.
Sebastian Payne @SebastianEPayne · 15m He didn’t say that and it’s dangerous to spread lies in a national crisis 😡 . This tweet should be deleted immediately. Quote Tweet Carole Cadwalladr @carolecadwalla · 17h Director of World Health Organisation: Britain’s strategy is ‘wrong & dangerous’
Why am I not surprised she is spreading fake news on this?
Her twitter feed is one long thread of lies and misinformation. I saw one tweet about how GP surgeries are acting against Govt advice to take their own precautions. I know they aren't. They are acting explicitly on guidance from the Dept of Health.
Had an interesting chat with guy doing maintenance on the London Tube yesterday (parked up in the van outside waiting for shutdown).
Apparently, there are teams of vital workers in various industries - rail, power, water already in lockdown. They are being paid 24/7 to camp in remote(ish) industrial/maintenance facilities out of contact with anyone. Apparently, the idea is that even if everyone else come down with the lurgy, they can keep things going.
The chap in question was rather keen on getting in on the next round - the idea is that after x months in isolation, a replacement team will be setup, wait a bit to make sure none are sick and then then first team comes.. out??
The reason he was keen was the full hourly rate 24/7.... Didn't ask his hourly rate, but got to be something north of £50...
Time for the West to stand up to the Chinese Communist government
It is time for the West to stand up to all authoritarian governments, but we don't need to embrace conspiracy theories to do it. Tobias Ellwood is revealing himself as an idiot.
You know for certain it’s not linked to a bio weapon?
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
The Government's policy isn't based on killing large numbers of people this summer. It explicitly isn't. It is relying on large numbers of people catching the virus. But generally those who will survive it, and during a period when the NHS has capacity. There is no "precautionary" approach on this. If treatments and/or vaccines were advanced by winter then we will still benefit from it. We will still be trying to build in extra winter capacity.
But we hopefully will have an added advantage of a measure of herd immunity. It is just wrong to suggest that the risks are all on the Government approach.
And if it does look like even under the current approach the NHS can't cope in summer there will no doubt be a ramping up of clamp down measures.
I don't think just having a large proportion of people surviving the disease is something to aim for.
What about those who are disabled from having permanently damaged lungs? What about other currently unknown long term effects?
We are lucky as we have several countries ahead of us showing us whether their methods will work and whether we should copy them or not.
Given the basis of the Govt strategy is long term, other countries being a few weeks or months ahead of us will likely not reveal anything. Except how quickly the virus can be rapidly (but likely temporarily) shut down at times of peak infection.
I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).
So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble. Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
The Government's policy isn't based on killing large numbers of people this summer. It explicitly isn't. It is relying on large numbers of people catching the virus. But generally those who will survive it, and during a period when the NHS has capacity. There is no "precautionary" approach on this. If treatments and/or vaccines were advanced by winter then we will still benefit from it. We will still be trying to build in extra winter capacity.
But we hopefully will have an added advantage of a measure of herd immunity. It is just wrong to suggest that the risks are all on the Government approach.
And if it does look like even under the current approach the NHS can't cope in summer there will no doubt be a ramping up of clamp down measures.
I don't think just having a large proportion of people surviving the disease is something to aim for.
What about those who are disabled from having permanently damaged lungs? What about other currently unknown long term effects?
We are lucky as we have several countries ahead of us showing us whether their methods will work and whether we should copy them or not.
Stop panicking and grow up. There isn’t any way forward that avoids some bad news.
Why is asking sceptical questions about government policy ‘panicking’ ? And who made you the authority on maturity ?
Comments
:-)
I believe with dengue fever it is actually more dangerous to have developed one immunity as it actively impedes recovery from different strains as your body gets tricked into producing the wrong cells to fight the disease.
The abstract reads:A significant number of infectious diseases display seasonal patterns in their incidence, including human coronaviruses. We hypothesize that SARS-CoV-2 does as well. To date, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has established significant community spread in cities and regions only along a narrow east west distribution roughly along the 30-50 N” corridor at consistently similar weather patterns (5-11OC and 47-79% humidity). There has been a lack of significant community establishment in expected locations that are based only on population proximity and extensive population interaction through travel. We have proposed a simplified model that shows a zone at increased risk for COVID-19 spread. Using weather modeling, it may be possible to predict the regions most likely to be at higher risk of significant community spread of COVID-19 in the upcoming weeks, allowing for concentration of public health efforts on surveillance and containment.
Seems to explain why Singapore and Thailand are doing quite well, although Malaysia has more cases, apparently all related to the one gathering.
If anyone's interested I can send a link.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Barry Humphries (he's about 1,000 years old but is highly sociable)
Camilla (shakes 100 hands/day and smokes 200 fags/day)
David Mitchell (wildcard/wishful thinking)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8111897/Britons-form-huge-queues-purchase-toilet-roll-strip-shelves-bare-panic-buying-continues.html
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
Emergency measures are essential but carry risks for the multitude of small, family-run businesses
TONY BARBER"
https://www.ft.com/content/6d3b5ff4-646c-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
[available via google]
Sainsburys in Keighley didn't have a single bog roll on the shelves this morning. And only a few packets of more expensive pasta. Woman on the checkout said they'd been busy since 8am. Organic avocados were readily available however.
Then passing the local Post Office on the way home a chap was just leaving carrying a 4-pack of bog roll. Shop local for a clean bum.
Though to be fair so do the alternatives.
Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.
They would however be wise to reopen very slowly and see what happens, for all the reasons that others here have posted.
Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.
https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-donald-trump-google-website/
However, I believe they think that a) they can use their state surveillance power to monitor upticks and better control it than the west and b) are more than happy to extend their move fast and break stuff approach to things like vaccines / treatments.
And in the short term, with the death of the whistle-blower doctor and the total implosion of the system, the party were under pressure and now it is important for them to re-establish the narrative.
*Doesn’t she allow you in the house ?
Bleak man, bleak
*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.
Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?
One this worth noting is that since this virus makes you infective before you get symptoms it strongly reduces the evolutionary pressure to become more mild.
It's the one thing that would help Trump.
The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.
Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).
If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).
If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.
Edit: the sauerkraut was in a barrel, not the voyage.
The third wave statement confused me. I think that's referring to an additional wave after lockdown restrictions are removed, rather than talking about seasonality? But I may have misinterpreted what you wrote.
I don't envy the behavioural insight team trying to model what irrational things people will do in their panic.
(From Italy, incidentally.)
Look at the numbers of active cases though, Italy has overtaken China and they're heading in opposite directions.
They really need ads having a checklist of essentials from drugs to steps to make life easier.
They may be to contain this with one big lockdown, followed by several smaller lockdowns that eliminate the disease eventually. We will be able to see if it works and adjust our policy accordingly.
But we hopefully will have an added advantage of a measure of herd immunity. It is just wrong to suggest that the risks are all on the Government approach.
And if it does look like even under the current approach the NHS can't cope in summer there will no doubt be a ramping up of clamp down measures.
Bought half-a-dozen of these:
@SebastianEPayne
·
15m
He didn’t say that and it’s dangerous to spread lies in a national crisis
😡
. This tweet should be deleted immediately.
Quote Tweet
Carole Cadwalladr
@carolecadwalla
· 17h
Director of World Health Organisation: Britain’s strategy is ‘wrong & dangerous’
https://theguardian.com/world/2020/mar
Both she and her 'newspaper' are pond life scum!
From talking to people, their aim seems to be to reduce the amount of shopping required to live to a minimum for x months.
WHO and various governments are asking 'How do we minimise the spread?'
UK government is asking 'How do we minimise the economic impact?'
UK: How do we mitigate this?
Given containment has failed, only one of the two is asking the right question.
On your point about the multiple lockdowns. Perhaps the modeling suggests that is a worse outcome than a single outbreak?
What about those who are disabled from having permanently damaged lungs? What about other currently unknown long term effects?
We are lucky as we have several countries ahead of us showing us whether their methods will work and whether we should copy them or not.
The government is expected to say that all Spaniards must stay home except to buy food or drugs, go to the hospital, go to work or other emergencies, El Mundo said.
So not really a lockdown.
There is no threshold on posts to 'have an opinion', but it is quite unusual to express it at length in very decided terms when you're new to posting. Unfortunately, on PB, some of our less hinged members are on their 4th or 5th username, having been banned for one reason or another, and at least one member has several going all at once. It is not at all unlikely that this person would launch yet another persona to support his own views on what has become quite a heated debate here. So forgive me for being suspicious.
Apparently, there are teams of vital workers in various industries - rail, power, water already in lockdown. They are being paid 24/7 to camp in remote(ish) industrial/maintenance facilities out of contact with anyone. Apparently, the idea is that even if everyone else come down with the lurgy, they can keep things going.
The chap in question was rather keen on getting in on the next round - the idea is that after x months in isolation, a replacement team will be setup, wait a bit to make sure none are sick and then then first team comes.. out??
The reason he was keen was the full hourly rate 24/7.... Didn't ask his hourly rate, but got to be something north of £50...
And who made you the authority on maturity ?