It's a salutary thought that this daily death rate is more than three times the peak death rate in China (based on confirmed cases) and that the number of confirmed cases in the UK is only about a third of the number of confirmed cases in China at that time.
Iv seen lots of articles based on the number of remains that funeral homes are prepossessing. but one thing they all seem to miss is that some people will have duyed of other resons.
The province in question has 11 million people, the chines average mortality rate in 2018 was 7.13 per 1000 so 78,000 a year. so in about 2 and a bit months maybe 15,000, who presumably needed processing by the funeral homes perhaps without access to hospitals pluss a lot of stress twices that????? so 30,000 plus the official numbers and you get close to the 40,000 to 42,000 in theses estamits.
Don't get me wrong I am sure that china is hiding things, that's what they do. but I wish there was better evedance.
Winner of dickhead question of the day...Peston hands down...can we send CV patients home that won't make it, so they can die with their loved ones.
Yes. Utterly bizarre question.
Bizarre....I nearly dropped my drink all over my PC. What does he think they have, incurable cancer? He wants to send people at the height of their infectiousness back out to live with family members, the mind boggles.
Winner of dickhead question of the day...Peston hands down...can we send CV patients home that won't make it, so they can die with their loved ones.
Yes. Utterly bizarre question.
Bizarre....I nearly dropped my drink all over my PC. What does he think they have, incurable cancer? He wants to send people at the height of their infectiousness back out to live with family members, the mind boggles.
I have just discovered some cheese in my larder that appears to be close to evolving enough to count as a lobby journalist. Can we please get it to the next press briefing?
And now we are back to can you tell me to second when the peak will come and exactly how many to the nearest 1 will die....despite the egg-heads repeatedly explaining this.
It's a salutary thought that this daily death rate is more than three times the peak death rate in China (based on confirmed cases) and that the number of confirmed cases in the UK is only about a third of the number of confirmed cases in China at that time.
I was commenting on the anonymous nature of the sources - not asking for more poor-quality sources to be cited!
But I apologise for diverting people from their statistical analysis of the tiny fraction of UK cases that have been detected. Please ignore me and carry on with this valuable work.
When I taught first year undergrads (many moons ago), I thought I got some dumb ass questions, but the journalists really are hold my beer, I have one for you...
Just for information, without comment on policy: my understanding (second hand from Government sources) is that the peak load on the NHS is expected in Easter weekend (Apr 11-13). After that, the issue will be far from over, but on current trends with current lockdown the number of new patients entering hospital will stop exceeding the number leaving (because they're cured or have died). The crucial issue is therefore whether there are enough staff, PPE, gowns and beds to cope on that date.
Obviously subject to change, like any prediction, but maybe this helps get a feeling for the shape of the coming weeks. I have not heard any prediction on the number of deaths, but sadly there are clearly a lot still to come.
The figure seems to have been revised upwards to 393. Even more disturbing is that according to Sky they included 28 patients with no underlying health conditions, one of whom was a 19 year old.
Many young people are dying from this around the world. A 12 year old girl in Belgium today too. If you infected every adolescent and under 30 with this virus in order to develop herd immunity, you would still be looking at many of them dying even if the % is a lot less than for the elderly. That part never seems to get mentioned. One of the biggest global communication mistakes early on was that this was just a disease of the elderly.
This is why the Toby Young comments are so stupid. Really I sometimes despair at the quality of journalism in the UK.
Young is a columnist, he barely qualifies as a journalist.
He's basically a bloke with a blog who's got it syndicated in a national paper. No one would give a shit what he said if he didn't have the prestige of being published in a paper.
His opinion is valid and discussion is welcome.
We don't want to get to a Man made global warming situation were a group tells us no discussion is allowed.
But he is not disputing the facts of the disease. Nor is he saying fewer people are likely to die than the official claims. Those would be valid debating points.
What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if those people die because they are old and comparatively worthless. He is saying that the wealth of those who survive is more important than the lives of those who die. That is an abhorrent position to take and not one that should be considered worthy of debate.
To use your analogy it would be like saying that all the global warming claims are true but it doesn't matter because only poor non-white people will die.
Only if it gets through tomorrow - opposition from the Tories and Cherry has said MSPs need to consider these proposals very, very carefully #coronavirus
Om a lighter side, PBers may enjoy a note from the redoubtable older lady who used to run Conservatives for Palmer when I was an MP. She's well over 70, in shaky health, but absolutely nothing gets her down:
Heard some advice on the radio last night, it said to have inner peace, that we should always finish things we start, and we all could use more calm in our lives. I looked through my house to find things that I'd started and hadn't finished, so I finished off a bottle of Merlot, a bottle of Whiskey, a bodle of Baileys, a butle of wum, tha mainder of Valiumun srciptuns, an a box a chocletz. Yu haf no idr how fablus I feel rite now. Sned this to all who need inner piss. An telum u luvum. And two al bee hapee wilst in de instalation.
It's a salutary thought that this daily death rate is more than three times the peak death rate in China (based on confirmed cases) and that the number of confirmed cases in the UK is only about a third of the number of confirmed cases in China at that time.
I think we can safely dismiss the Chinese statistics entirely.
China will end up with the lowest fatality rate per head of population by a factor of 100+
The wonders of communism eh ?
Until the second wave. When the satellites see their pollution has stopped again, all over China. And only 4 people have been reported dead.
There will be people in the country wondering why it is not possible for someone who is succumbing to Covid-19 to go home to die - thus freeing up a hospital bed and passing away in the presence of loved ones rather than in an ICU surrounded by strangers.
So why should a journalist not ask that question on behalf of those people?
So the UK has now overtaken Italy in terms of new active cases net of healed.
Are our numbers of healed being under reported?
Yes. They have an asterisk on the website stating that number is from 22nd March and has not been updated since.
It's such a glaring omission from the stats, but our political journalists are more interested in a process of political story than actually helping bring more information to the public. It would be very interesting to know how many people have been discharged from hospital and how many who have tested positive but through their seven days of isolation and no longer ill.
Only if it gets through tomorrow - opposition from the Tories and Cherry has said MSPs need to consider these proposals very, very carefully #coronavirus
If it does get through then I anticipate a large number of appeals when this is all done with the Scottish Government being on the hook for huge amounts of compensation for unsafe prosecutions.
Just for information, without comment on policy: my understanding (second hand from Government sources) is that the peak load on the NHS is expected in Easter weekend (Apr 11-13). After that, the issue will be far from over, but on current trends with current lockdown the number of new patients entering hospital will stop exceeding the number leaving (because they're cured or have died). The crucial issue is therefore whether there are enough staff, PPE, gowns and beds to cope on that date.
Obviously subject to change, like any prediction, but maybe this helps get a feeling for the shape of the coming weeks. I have not heard any prediction on the number of deaths, but sadly there are clearly a lot still to come.
That makes sense. 2.5-3 weeks after the lockdown should be the most challenging time. The maximum number of new cases per day (being admitted to hospital) should peak around this weekend, but will stay constant (if we follow the same trend as Italy / Spain) for a good period after that.
The figure seems to have been revised upwards to 393. Even more disturbing is that according to Sky they included 28 patients with no underlying health conditions, one of whom was a 19 year old.
Many young people are dying from this around the world. A 12 year old girl in Belgium today too. If you infected every adolescent and under 30 with this virus in order to develop herd immunity, you would still be looking at many of them dying even if the % is a lot less than for the elderly. That part never seems to get mentioned. One of the biggest global communication mistakes early on was that this was just a disease of the elderly.
This is why the Toby Young comments are so stupid. Really I sometimes despair at the quality of journalism in the UK.
Young is a columnist, he barely qualifies as a journalist.
He's basically a bloke with a blog who's got it syndicated in a national paper. No one would give a shit what he said if he didn't have the prestige of being published in a paper.
His opinion is valid and discussion is welcome.
We don't want to get to a Man made global warming situation were a group tells us no discussion is allowed.
But he is not disputing the facts of the disease. Nor is he saying fewer people are likely to die than the official claims. Those would be valid debating points.
What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if those people die because they are old and comparatively worthless. He is saying that the wealth of those who survive is more important than the lives of those who die. That is an abhorrent position to take and not one that should be considered worthy of debate.
To use your analogy it would be like saying that all the global warming claims are true but it doesn't matter because only poor non-white people will die.
It is both morally and logically repugnant.
That is not what Young is saying.
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the point the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
Only if it gets through tomorrow - opposition from the Tories and Cherry has said MSPs need to consider these proposals very, very carefully #coronavirus
If it does get through then I anticipate a large number of appeals when this is all done with the Scottish Government being on the hook for huge amounts of compensation for unsafe prosecutions.
2 months delay doesn't seem like a big issue - daft from the numpty Humza.
When I taught first year undergrads (many moons ago), I thought I got some dumb ass questions, but the journalists really are hold my beer, I have one for you...
Again, they aren't looking to inform but to entertain.
The figure seems to have been revised upwards to 393. Even more disturbing is that according to Sky they included 28 patients with no underlying health conditions, one of whom was a 19 year old.
Many young people are dying from this around the world. A 12 year old girl in Belgium today too. If you infected every adolescent and under 30 with this virus in order to develop herd immunity, you would still be looking at many of them dying even if the % is a lot less than for the elderly. That part never seems to get mentioned. One of the biggest global communication mistakes early on was that this was just a disease of the elderly.
This is why the Toby Young comments are so stupid. Really I sometimes despair at the quality of journalism in the UK.
Young is a columnist, he barely qualifies as a journalist.
He's basically a bloke with a blog who's got it syndicated in a national paper. No one would give a shit what he said if he didn't have the prestige of being published in a paper.
His opinion is valid and discussion is welcome.
We don't want to get to a Man made global warming situation were a group tells us no discussion is allowed.
But he is not disputing the facts of the disease. Nor is he saying fewer people are likely to die than the official claims. Those would be valid debating points.
What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if those people die because they are old and comparatively worthless. He is saying that the wealth of those who survive is more important than the lives of those who die. That is an abhorrent position to take and not one that should be considered worthy of debate.
To use your analogy it would be like saying that all the global warming claims are true but it doesn't matter because only poor non-white people will die.
It is both morally and logically repugnant.
That is not what Young is saying.
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
But in the end that is exactly what he is saying. He may do his best to try and avoid couching it so starkly but he is arguing that some people's lives are worth less than others not because of any external factor but simply because they are old. As an ethical position in any modern society it is utterly indefensible.
I live on my own and am pretty fit, mid-50's, female. So I have fair odds. But I've also applied a Maslow hierarchy of needs to my life. What's my most basic need? The answer is not to get the virus. If I have to sacrifice other 'needs' above that one at the base then so be it.
So I'm taking lockdown seriously, disinfecting everything that comes through my door, going out rarely and, when I do, I'm wearing full protective gear.
It might not work and I might get the bloody thing, but that's just my approach. I also feel it's my responsibility to others.
It's an obvious point but we need a vaccine and/or we need a cure. Until we get them no-one is safe.
What a time, 'eh?
Looking for silver linings, it will give you a new set of experiences to mine for your next book!
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
I love the idea of a 'boris break'. BTW Do we have any reports of how he and Hancock are doing? Oh I just thought could we not rename the breaks 'Hancock's half hours'
Well enough for a Cabinet meeting this morning. Not sure how many days he's got left locked away.
Out on Friday this week iirc. A GP on the Labour team has written to him to say he should stay another 7 days as WHO now say 14 days isolation with symptoms.
Why would a GP on the Labour team think it helpful to intervene like that?
Just for information, without comment on policy: my understanding (second hand from Government sources) is that the peak load on the NHS is expected in Easter weekend (Apr 11-13). After that, the issue will be far from over, but on current trends with current lockdown the number of new patients entering hospital will stop exceeding the number leaving (because they're cured or have died). The crucial issue is therefore whether there are enough staff, PPE, gowns and beds to cope on that date.
Obviously subject to change, like any prediction, but maybe this helps get a feeling for the shape of the coming weeks. I have not heard any prediction on the number of deaths, but sadly there are clearly a lot still to come.
That makes sense. 2.5-3 weeks after the lockdown should be the most challenging time. The maximum number of new cases per day (being admitted to hospital) should peak around this weekend, but will stay constant (if we follow the same trend as Italy / Spain) for a good period after that.
I wonder if it might be a few days before that, given how many people squirrelled themselves away well before Boris called the lockdown. Most people I know were taking no chances probably 10 days before that. Maybe different in the cities, but anywhere with more elderly was already going "oo-er.....run away!"
There will be people in the country wondering why it is not possible for someone who is succumbing to Covid-19 to go home to die - thus freeing up a hospital bed and passing away in the presence of loved ones rather than in an ICU surrounded by strangers.
So why should a journalist not ask that question on behalf of those people?
Oh come on. Nobody who is watching that press conference is so dense not to know by now this is a highly infectious disease and you can't go anywhere near anybody who has. The news have reported this time and time again, and have reported about how in Italy and Spain people are dying alone because of this.
It was a dumb ass question and there is nothing more to it.
A better question would have been what steps are you taking for families of those that you know aren't going to make to make contact with a loved one before they die. That is a very reasonable question.
Just for information, without comment on policy: my understanding (second hand from Government sources) is that the peak load on the NHS is expected in Easter weekend (Apr 11-13). After that, the issue will be far from over, but on current trends with current lockdown the number of new patients entering hospital will stop exceeding the number leaving (because they're cured or have died). The crucial issue is therefore whether there are enough staff, PPE, gowns and beds to cope on that date.
Obviously subject to change, like any prediction, but maybe this helps get a feeling for the shape of the coming weeks. I have not heard any prediction on the number of deaths, but sadly there are clearly a lot still to come.
That makes sense. 2.5-3 weeks after the lockdown should be the most challenging time. The maximum number of new cases per day (being admitted to hospital) should peak around this weekend, but will stay constant (if we follow the same trend as Italy / Spain) for a good period after that.
I wonder if it might be a few days before that, given how many people squirrelled themselves away well before Boris called the lockdown. Most people I know were taking no chances probably 10 days before that. Maybe different in the cities, but anywhere with more elderly was already going "oo-er.....run away!"
I agree - here (not based in a big city), an effective lockdown was in place several days prior to the official lockdown. Not sure about the big cities though.
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
I love the idea of a 'boris break'. BTW Do we have any reports of how he and Hancock are doing? Oh I just thought could we not rename the breaks 'Hancock's half hours'
Well enough for a Cabinet meeting this morning. Not sure how many days he's got left locked away.
Out on Friday this week iirc. A GP on the Labour team has written to him to say he should stay another 7 days as WHO now say 14 days isolation with symptoms.
Why would a GP on the Labour team think it helpful to intervene like that?
The figure seems to have been revised upwards to 393. Even more disturbing is that according to Sky they included 28 patients with no underlying health conditions, one of whom was a 19 year old.
Many young people are dying from this around the world. A 12 year old girl in Belgium today too. If you infected every adolescent and under 30 with this virus in order to develop herd immunity, you would still be looking at many of them dying even if the % is a lot less than for the elderly. That part never seems to get mentioned. One of the biggest global communication mistakes early on was that this was just a disease of the elderly.
This is why the Toby Young comments are so stupid. Really I sometimes despair at the quality of journalism in the UK.
Young is a columnist, he barely qualifies as a journalist.
He's basically a bloke with a blog who's got it syndicated in a national paper. No one would give a shit what he said if he didn't have the prestige of being published in a paper.
His opinion is valid and discussion is welcome.
We don't want to get to a Man made global warming situation were a group tells us no discussion is allowed.
But he is not disputing the facts of the disease. Nor is he saying fewer people are likely to die than the official claims. Those would be valid debating points.
What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if those people die because they are old and comparatively worthless. He is saying that the wealth of those who survive is more important than the lives of those who die. That is an abhorrent position to take and not one that should be considered worthy of debate.
To use your analogy it would be like saying that all the global warming claims are true but it doesn't matter because only poor non-white people will die.
It is both morally and logically repugnant.
That is not what Young is saying.
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
But in the end that is exactly what he is saying. He may do his best to try and avoid couching it so starkly but he is arguing that some people's lives are worth less than others not because of any external factor but simply because they are old. As an ethical position in any modern society it is utterly indefensible.
At which point you are into the whole controversy over QALYS. I'm not saying that Toby Young is right - I think he is wrong - but that is where the QALYS road takes you.
The figure seems to have been revised upwards to 393. Even more disturbing is that according to Sky they included 28 patients with no underlying health conditions, one of whom was a 19 year old.
Many young people are dying from this around the world. A 12 year old girl in Belgium today too. If you infected every adolescent and under 30 with this virus in order to develop herd immunity, you would still be looking at many of them dying even if the % is a lot less than for the elderly. That part never seems to get mentioned. One of the biggest global communication mistakes early on was that this was just a disease of the elderly.
This is why the Toby Young comments are so stupid. Really I sometimes despair at the quality of journalism in the UK.
Young is a columnist, he barely qualifies as a journalist.
He's basically a bloke with a blog who's got it syndicated in a national paper. No one would give a shit what he said if he didn't have the prestige of being published in a paper.
His opinion is valid and discussion is welcome.
We don't want to get to a Man made global warming situation were a group tells us no discussion is allowed.
But he is not disputing the facts of the disease. Nor is he saying fewer people are likely to die than the official claims. Those would be valid debating points.
What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if those people die because they are old and comparatively worthless. He is saying that the wealth of those who survive is more important than the lives of those who die. That is an abhorrent position to take and not one that should be considered worthy of debate.
To use your analogy it would be like saying that all the global warming claims are true but it doesn't matter because only poor non-white people will die.
It is both morally and logically repugnant.
That is not what Young is saying.
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
But in the end that is exactly what he is saying. He may do his best to try and avoid couching it so starkly but he is arguing that some people's lives are worth less than others not because of any external factor but simply because they are old. As an ethical position in any modern society it is utterly indefensible.
The person who is arguing some lives are worth more is you because you are prepared to countenance lives being saved at enormous cost, something you know will result in hardship, penury and death for others down the line when the mother of all recessions hits, as it surely will.
Do not think your position is any less abhorent than Young's because in factit involves the same price judgements, just front loaded to take account of your conscience.
when this is over and a gargantuan bill arrives you will be ignoring the thousands of deaths that accompany that bill because they won;t be in the news, there won;t be any mercy dashes and the NHS will not be in'danger' and it won;t be a national emergency.
As a position, I would say that's pretty abhorrent.
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the point the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
But the point he has ignored - that the lockdown is to stop the NHS falling over - is THE point. If you gloss over this and just talk about "lives can and must be priced" you are left with something true but quite banal. Indeed I did a post of quite considerable banality on this exact issue the other day, so we don't need Toby.
Interesting that they are looking at a malaria treatments for some patients.
There has been a massive battle between Professor Raoult a Marseilles based virologist & Macron's experts in Paris.Patients at the intermediate stage of infection in Marseilles have received the malaria style treatment with good results.
Macron & his advisers have tried to block as it is not an officially approved treatment etc.but the official line is now being ignored with this treatment now being used in other hospitals in the south.
Just Rewound "We do not have the right type of chemical reagents" was his answer to why we are stuck at 10,000 or less
So he did answer the question but how come everyone else does?
Guessing there are very few global suppliers. Same situation with ventilators - those countries with manufacturers are not going to let them be exported much or at all, until they have what they need.
There will be people in the country wondering why it is not possible for someone who is succumbing to Covid-19 to go home to die - thus freeing up a hospital bed and passing away in the presence of loved ones rather than in an ICU surrounded by strangers.
So why should a journalist not ask that question on behalf of those people?
The mail would love that: 'Gove to kick Granny to be kicked out of ICU, to die at home'. Luckily, Gove and the technocrats weren't born yesterday.
There will be people in the country wondering why it is not possible for someone who is succumbing to Covid-19 to go home to die - thus freeing up a hospital bed and passing away in the presence of loved ones rather than in an ICU surrounded by strangers.
So why should a journalist not ask that question on behalf of those people?
The mail would love that: 'Gove to kick Granny to be kicked out of ICU, to die at home'. Luckily, Gove and the technocrats weren't born yesterday.
There is also the slight problem that the patient will be infectious.
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the point the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
But the point he has ignored - that the lockdown is to stop the NHS falling over - is THE point. If you gloss over this and just talk about "lives can and must be priced" you are left with something true but quite banal. Indeed I did a post of quite considerable banality on this exact issue the other day, so we don't need Toby.
Well quite. The whole point is to stop the NHS falling over with too many cases. Once we know it can cope, we need to change strategy and look at the economy.
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the point the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
But the point he has ignored - that the lockdown is to stop the NHS falling over - is THE point. If you gloss over this and just talk about "lives can and must be priced" you are left with something true but quite banal. Indeed I did a post of quite considerable banality on this exact issue the other day, so we don't need Toby.
I've noticed there's a certain type of right-winger that has a weird fetish for driving the conversation into the arena of pricing lives, or more generally of making "tough decisions". Like, yes, well done dude, you've signalled your hard-headedness, you've reminded us of your rationality aesthetic, I'm sure you've triggered some libs, now can we please go back to what we were talking about?
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
That will be because the ventilator has arrived....
Well looks like we have plateaued in tests and therefore cases.
Until UK gets the chemicals we will never know if we have actually plateaued.
Well, if the % of positive tests keeps going up that will be a good indicator... In some sense, keeping the methodology for sampling individuals the same gives us a good measure. Indeed, I think that Italy (@tyson or @AndreaParma_82 might know more here) has been adopting the same strategy in most regions (Veneto being the big exception, where much wider-spread testing has taken place).
Additionally, i also wonder whether there might be other testing going on that is helping them keep track of the infection that is not reported in the figures. For example, Dr Harries mentioned the validation of the antibody tests. That will take place across a cross-section of society and will require use of multiple different testing mechanisms I think (and may not be taking place in PHE or their devolved counterparts labs).
Interesting that they are looking at a malaria treatments for some patients.
There has been a massive battle between Professor Raoult a Marseilles based virologist & Macron's experts in Paris.Patients at the intermediate stage of infection in Marseilles have received the malaria style treatment with good results.
Macron & his advisers have tried to block as it is not an officially approved treatment etc.but the official line is now being ignored with this treatment now being used in other hospitals in the south.
The FDA recently approved an anti-malarial for US use I think
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
That will be because the ventilator has arrived....
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
That will be because the ventilator has arrived....
Bloody hell fire, I know we haven't got them yet, but that is some going and basically all UK built. But I am sure some will still be banging on about why we didn't go in with the EU deal.
TBH, America is so in the shit and their GM consortium is going to build them so slowly, we can probably lease our out to them for a few months as unless something changes they are going to be woefully short even by June.
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the point the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
But the point he has ignored - that the lockdown is to stop the NHS falling over - is THE point. If you gloss over this and just talk about "lives can and must be priced" you are left with something true but quite banal. Indeed I did a post of quite considerable banality on this exact issue the other day, so we don't need Toby.
I've noticed there's a certain type of right-winger that has a weird fetish for driving the conversation into the arena of pricing lives, or more generally of making "tough decisions". Like, yes, well done dude, you've signalled your hard-headedness, you've reminded us of your rationality aesthetic, I'm sure you've triggered some libs, now can we please go back to what we were talking about?
Aside from who you are accusing of being right wing, it is interesting how people on the regressive (sometimes called progressive) end of politics behave when presented with such decisions.
The tendency is to state that even thinking about such tradeoff means you are evil. Put the whole thing out of mind and not make a decision.
The sad reality of the world is that is exactly those decisions that are at the heart of what a government does. Until we achieve a post scarcity society, complete with sentient starships with sarcastic names, it will always be so.
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the point the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
But the point he has ignored - that the lockdown is to stop the NHS falling over - is THE point. If you gloss over this and just talk about "lives can and must be priced" you are left with something true but quite banal. Indeed I did a post of quite considerable banality on this exact issue the other day, so we don't need Toby.
I've noticed there's a certain type of right-winger that has a weird fetish for driving the conversation into the arena of pricing lives, or more generally of making "tough decisions". Like, yes, well done dude, you've signalled your hard-headedness, you've reminded us of your rationality aesthetic, I'm sure you've triggered some libs, now can we please go back to what we were talking about?
Of course there are also the ones who after mentioning tough decisions, add "if you catch my drift", then draw their calipers just far enough out of their pocket for you to see them. Toby's probably in that group.
Oh come on. Nobody who is watching that press conference is so dense not to know by now this is a highly infectious disease and you can't go anywhere near anybody who has. The news have reported this time and time again, and have reported about how in Italy and Spain people are dying alone because of this.
It was a dumb ass question and there is nothing more to it.
A better question would have been what steps are you taking for families of those that you know aren't going to make to make contact with a loved one before they die. That is a very reasonable question.
It is nothing like as clear as that to many people. You WOULD free up a bed and you WOULD allow a more compassionate life end for the person and their loved ones - perhaps just a loved ONE. Perhaps an immune loved one.
These are positives - and big ones - that can quite validly be stacked up against the massive negative of risk of further infection. It's a valid debate to have. It's a valid question. There is nothing "dumb ass" about asking it.
You (and one or two others) are displaying unpleasant and almost fascistic tendencies with this constant scolding of the media. For the right reasons, I know, you're immersed in it, very concerned, frustrated by those less so, but still.
Just Rewound "We do not have the right type of chemical reagents" was his answer to why we are stuck at 10,000 or less
So he did answer the question but how come everyone else does?
A guess - they are not manufactured in the UK.
Spain imported 58,000 test kits from China which were defective (Guardian 27/3) , likewise the Netherlands received thousands of P2 respirators from China which again were defective. Maybe explains the caution?
Well looks like we have plateaued in tests and therefore cases.
Until UK gets the chemicals we will never know if we have actually plateaued.
Deaths are probably a better proxy.
I agree but its a lagging one.
I dont get the comment from one of the experts that the number of new cases is levelling out. Is that not an obvious thing that is bound to happen if our tests have levelled out.
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
That will be because the ventilator has arrived....
Bloody hell fire, I know we haven't got them yet, but that is some going and basically all UK built. But I am sure some will still be banging on about why we didn't go in with the EU deal.
TBH, America is so in the shit and their GM consortium is going to build them so slowly, we can probably lease our out to them for a few months as unless something changes they are going to be woefully short even by June.
The MRHA needs to pull its finger out. We need decent machines ASAP.
Well looks like we have plateaued in tests and therefore cases.
Until UK gets the chemicals we will never know if we have actually plateaued.
Deaths are probably a better proxy.
I agree but its a lagging one.
I dont get the comment from one of the experts that the number of new cases is levelling out. Is that not an obvious thing that is bound to happen if our tests have levelled out.
Hospital admissions was specifically mentioned by the CMO the other day.
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
That will be because the ventilator has arrived....
Bloody hell fire, I know we haven't got them yet, but that is some going and basically all UK built. But I am sure some will still be banging on about why we didn't go in with the EU deal.
TBH, America is so in the shit and their GM consortium is going to build them so slowly, we can probably lease our out to them for a few months as unless something changes they are going to be woefully short even by June.
The MRHA needs to pull its finger out. We need decent machines ASAP.
Ignore testing at your peril. Otherwise you end up with 10,000 machines that don't work. The testing will feed back into the design, for the actual production run...
The figure seems to have been revised upwards to 393. Even more disturbing is that according to Sky they included 28 patients with no underlying health conditions, one of whom was a 19 year old.
Many young people are dying from this around the world. A 12 year old girl in Belgium today too. If you infected every adolescent and under 30 with this virus in order to develop herd immunity, you would still be looking at many of them dying even if the % is a lot less than for the elderly. That part never seems to get mentioned. One of the biggest global communication mistakes early on was that this was just a disease of the elderly.
This is why the Toby Young comments are so stupid. Really I sometimes despair at the quality of journalism in the UK.
Young is a columnist, he barely qualifies as a journalist.
He's basically a bloke with a blog who's got it syndicated in a national paper. No one would give a shit what he said if he didn't have the prestige of being published in a paper.
His opinion is valid and discussion is welcome.
We don't want to get to a Man made global warming situation were a group tells us no discussion is allowed.
But he is not disputing the facts of the disease. Nor is he saying fewer people are likely to die than the official claims. Those would be valid debating points.
What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if those people die because they are old and comparatively worthless. He is saying that the wealth of those who survive is more important than the lives of those who die. That is an abhorrent position to take and not one that should be considered worthy of debate.
To use your analogy it would be like saying that all the global warming claims are true but it doesn't matter because only poor non-white people will die.
It is both morally and logically repugnant.
That is not what Young is saying.
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
But in the end that is exactly what he is saying. He may do his best to try and avoid couching it so starkly but he is arguing that some people's lives are worth less than others not because of any external factor but simply because they are old. As an ethical position in any modern society it is utterly indefensible.
The person who is arguing some lives are worth more is you because you are prepared to countenance lives being saved at enormous cost, something you know will result in hardship, penury and death for others down the line when the mother of all recessions hits, as it surely will.
Do not think your position is any less abhorent than Young's because in factit involves the same price judgements, just front loaded to take account of your conscience.
when this is over and a gargantuan bill arrives you will be ignoring the thousands of deaths that accompany that bill because they won;t be in the news, there won;t be any mercy dashes and the NHS will not be in'danger' and it won;t be a national emergency.
As a position, I would say that's pretty abhorrent.
LOL. That is one of the truly greatest leaps of logic I have ever seen. You are as bad as Young and both deserve nothing but contempt for your views and your ignorance.
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
That will be because the ventilator has arrived....
Well looks like we have plateaued in tests and therefore cases.
Until UK gets the chemicals we will never know if we have actually plateaued.
Deaths are probably a better proxy.
I agree but its a lagging one.
I dont get the comment from one of the experts that the number of new cases is levelling out. Is that not an obvious thing that is bound to happen if our tests have levelled out.
If they're doing sampling (and I think they've said they are), then they can extrapolate a general infection rate in the same way that the polling companies do for opinion polling.
Oh come on. Nobody who is watching that press conference is so dense not to know by now this is a highly infectious disease and you can't go anywhere near anybody who has. The news have reported this time and time again, and have reported about how in Italy and Spain people are dying alone because of this.
It was a dumb ass question and there is nothing more to it.
A better question would have been what steps are you taking for families of those that you know aren't going to make to make contact with a loved one before they die. That is a very reasonable question.
It is nothing like as clear as that to many people. You WOULD free up a bed and you WOULD allow a more compassionate life end for the person and their loved ones - perhaps just a loved ONE. Perhaps an immune loved one.
These are positives - and big ones - that can quite validly be stacked up against the massive negative of risk of further infection. It's a valid debate to have. It's a valid question. There is nothing "dumb ass" about asking it.
You (and one or two others) are displaying unpleasant and almost fascistic tendencies with this constant scolding of the media. For the right reasons, I know, you're immersed in it, very concerned, frustrated by those less so, but still.
More likely, as in Italy, such patients wouldn't get to hospital in the first place. Indeed in Hove that seems to be happening already.
A merger between Paddy Power and Betfair owner Flutter Entertainment and The Stars Group, owner of Sky Bet, was on Tuesday given the go-ahead by the UK's competition watchdog.
But the Horserace Bettors Forum warned that the coming together is not good news for punters.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) cleared Flutter's £10 billion purchase of Stars after opening an investigation into the deal, which was agreed in October, at the start of February.
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
That will be because the ventilator has arrived....
Very good news given there are only 25 000 coronavirus cases so far in the whole UK
I think everyone can agree if we spend some hundreds of millions of pounds creating a stockpile of ventilators we never use, it was at least an interesting method of keeping people in paid employment.
We could always send/sell them to other countries....
What would today’s reported deaths have been without social distancing then?
No difference given the time lag between infection, diagnosis and death. Today’s deaths will have started down the path before social distancing had an impact.
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
I love the idea of a 'boris break'. BTW Do we have any reports of how he and Hancock are doing? Oh I just thought could we not rename the breaks 'Hancock's half hours'
Well enough for a Cabinet meeting this morning. Not sure how many days he's got left locked away.
Out on Friday this week iirc. A GP on the Labour team has written to him to say he should stay another 7 days as WHO now say 14 days isolation with symptoms.
Why would a GP on the Labour team think it helpful to intervene like that?
Why would they think it appropriate to publicise?
14 days post resolution of fever is what the WHO recommends for isolation. The UK recommendation of 7 days post resolution of fever is insufficient to prevent onward transmission. We know that viral shedding continues for quite a while. It is a valid point, if trying to protect the top team.
The government system seems incapable if increasing the number of test at an adequate pass, and had been beaten by Germany USA and even Italy, Yes there are reasons, there are always resons, the wrong sort of chemicals, just like the wrong sort of leaves on the train line. but some how the privet secter find ways of getting around problems.
One approach the government have not used is asking the privet sector to help, when they asked for help making venterlaters, with a few days lots of companys form F1 teams to Vacuum makers where working out ways of doing it.
Well at least one privet Lab is now also offering tests, for you or to gift to an NHS employee.
I have a feeling some will object, but the real let down here is that the government is not using this resosers, and the worst outcome would be nobody make use of this supply of test kits
QM2 update: the passenger who tested positive has been tested again and is now negative; in the absence of symptoms they are assuming the first test was a false positive. Passengers have been allowed out of their cabins and the ship is preparing to dock in Durban for provisions and fuel.
People are still on cruises?
There are a dozen or so ships still out there, some carrying infected people and a few carrying dead bodies, seeking ports that will let them offload their passengers.
Well looks like we have plateaued in tests and therefore cases.
Until UK gets the chemicals we will never know if we have actually plateaued.
Deaths are probably a better proxy.
I agree but its a lagging one.
I dont get the comment from one of the experts that the number of new cases is levelling out. Is that not an obvious thing that is bound to happen if our tests have levelled out.
If they're doing sampling (and I think they've said they are), then they can extrapolate a general infection rate in the same way that the polling companies do for opinion polling.
Are they randomly sampling a section of the population? if so why not release the numbers?
It is bad but the trend could be worse. I feel quite optimistic today. I definitely sense that social distancing has taken root. Just got back a few minutes ago from my Boris Break and people are staying well away from each other. I'm sure it's the same everywhere. The virus will not be spreading so easily now. It will be hacked off and on the retreat. That will take some time to work through into the numbers but I think that one month from now we in the UK will be breathing a little easier.
I love the idea of a 'boris break'. BTW Do we have any reports of how he and Hancock are doing? Oh I just thought could we not rename the breaks 'Hancock's half hours'
Well enough for a Cabinet meeting this morning. Not sure how many days he's got left locked away.
Out on Friday this week iirc. A GP on the Labour team has written to him to say he should stay another 7 days as WHO now say 14 days isolation with symptoms.
Why would a GP on the Labour team think it helpful to intervene like that?
Why would they think it appropriate to publicise?
14 days post resolution of fever is what the WHO recommends for isolation. The UK recommendation of 7 days post resolution of fever is insufficient to prevent onward transmission. We know that viral shedding continues for quite a while. It is a valid point, if trying to protect the top team.
7 days is a nonsense. I assume they are working off the assumption most people are in households so the 14 day quarantine is the more likely period. But these high profile public figures back on the front line after 7 days? Hmm.
Comments
You want to send highly infectious people back into the community, how dense are you?
How do these people manage to tie their own shoelaces, let alone report on the news.
The province in question has 11 million people, the chines average mortality rate in 2018 was 7.13 per 1000 so 78,000 a year. so in about 2 and a bit months maybe 15,000, who presumably needed processing by the funeral homes perhaps without access to hospitals pluss a lot of stress twices that????? so 30,000 plus the official numbers and you get close to the 40,000 to 42,000 in theses estamits.
Don't get me wrong I am sure that china is hiding things, that's what they do. but I wish there was better evedance.
Cancel the 5G contact NOW!
Not sure it’s true but given the data on local cases I’m not surprised.
Let me think about it. I'll be back.
But I apologise for diverting people from their statistical analysis of the tiny fraction of UK cases that have been detected. Please ignore me and carry on with this valuable work.
McSharia law in full force.
Obviously subject to change, like any prediction, but maybe this helps get a feeling for the shape of the coming weeks. I have not heard any prediction on the number of deaths, but sadly there are clearly a lot still to come.
Young, Hitchens and Peston - what a waste of space they are
What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if those people die because they are old and comparatively worthless. He is saying that the wealth of those who survive is more important than the lives of those who die. That is an abhorrent position to take and not one that should be considered worthy of debate.
To use your analogy it would be like saying that all the global warming claims are true but it doesn't matter because only poor non-white people will die.
It is both morally and logically repugnant.
They just keep avoid answering that question that has been asked twice this very afternoon
https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1245007873786228741?s=20
Heard some advice on the radio last night, it said to have inner peace, that we should always finish things we start, and we all could use more calm in our lives. I looked through my house to find things that I'd started and hadn't finished, so I finished off a bottle of Merlot, a bottle of Whiskey, a bodle of Baileys, a butle of wum, tha mainder of Valiumun srciptuns, an a box a chocletz. Yu haf no idr how fablus I feel rite now. Sned this to all who need inner piss. An telum u luvum. And two al bee hapee wilst in de instalation.
So why should a journalist not ask that question on behalf of those people?
Young merely points out that governments put a price on life all the time. If they didn;t every health service in the world would have unlimited sums to play with. But they don't of course because there is the acceptable and the unacceptable spend on the saving and the letting die. Even though nobody admits it its patently true.
Young goes on to artgue that these lives, as opposed to others that we might save instead, are extraordinarily highly priced. Stratospherically priced.
We might let these folk die and save a whole bunch of other people at a tiny fraction of the cost. And we would still have a functioning economy.
That is Young's point. Where he is wrong is he ignores the point the health service will be overwhelmed if we did that. But once we have the capacity to cope with any CIVD surge his point is a valid one. A very valid one.
So he did answer the question but how come everyone else does?
Why would they think it appropriate to publicise?
It was a dumb ass question and there is nothing more to it.
A better question would have been what steps are you taking for families of those that you know aren't going to make to make contact with a loved one before they die. That is a very reasonable question.
Do not think your position is any less abhorent than Young's because in factit involves the same price judgements, just front loaded to take account of your conscience.
when this is over and a gargantuan bill arrives you will be ignoring the thousands of deaths that accompany that bill because they won;t be in the news, there won;t be any mercy dashes and the NHS will not be in'danger' and it won;t be a national emergency.
As a position, I would say that's pretty abhorrent.
Until UK gets the chemicals we will never know if we have actually plateaued.
There has been a massive battle between Professor Raoult a Marseilles based virologist & Macron's experts in Paris.Patients at the intermediate stage of infection in Marseilles have received the malaria style treatment with good results.
Macron & his advisers have tried to block as it is not an officially approved treatment etc.but the official line is now being ignored with this treatment now being used in other hospitals in the south.
Guessing there are very few global suppliers. Same situation with ventilators - those countries with manufacturers are not going to let them be exported much or at all, until they have what they need.
Sad indictment on Govts of all persuasions
Hospital admissions will provide the most accurate numbers for that. More accurate than the tests.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1244922986978828289?s=09
Additionally, i also wonder whether there might be other testing going on that is helping them keep track of the infection that is not reported in the figures. For example, Dr Harries mentioned the validation of the antibody tests. That will take place across a cross-section of society and will require use of multiple different testing mechanisms I think (and may not be taking place in PHE or their devolved counterparts labs).
TBH, America is so in the shit and their GM consortium is going to build them so slowly, we can probably lease our out to them for a few months as unless something changes they are going to be woefully short even by June.
The tendency is to state that even thinking about such tradeoff means you are evil. Put the whole thing out of mind and not make a decision.
The sad reality of the world is that is exactly those decisions that are at the heart of what a government does. Until we achieve a post scarcity society, complete with sentient starships with sarcastic names, it will always be so.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/30/keep-torch-handy-case-power-cuts-coronavirus-lockdown-households/
These are positives - and big ones - that can quite validly be stacked up against the massive negative of risk of further infection. It's a valid debate to have. It's a valid question. There is nothing "dumb ass" about asking it.
You (and one or two others) are displaying unpleasant and almost fascistic tendencies with this constant scolding of the media. For the right reasons, I know, you're immersed in it, very concerned, frustrated by those less so, but still.
What would today’s reported deaths have been without social distancing then?
I dont get the comment from one of the experts that the number of new cases is levelling out. Is that not an obvious thing that is bound to happen if our tests have levelled out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-52107677
A merger between Paddy Power and Betfair owner Flutter Entertainment and The Stars Group, owner of Sky Bet, was on Tuesday given the go-ahead by the UK's competition watchdog.
But the Horserace Bettors Forum warned that the coming together is not good news for punters.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) cleared Flutter's £10 billion purchase of Stars after opening an investigation into the deal, which was agreed in October, at the start of February.
The CMA found punters would not receive less favourable odds or fewer promotions as a result of the tie-up due to strong competition for customers from rivals such as William Hill and bet365.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/blockbuster-merger-of-sky-bet-and-paddy-power-betfair-owners-gets-green-light/430480
Thanks, CMA. Want to bet on that?
We could always send/sell them to other countries....
The government system seems incapable if increasing the number of test at an adequate pass, and had been beaten by Germany USA and even Italy, Yes there are reasons, there are always resons, the wrong sort of chemicals, just like the wrong sort of leaves on the train line. but some how the privet secter find ways of getting around problems.
One approach the government have not used is asking the privet sector to help, when they asked for help making venterlaters, with a few days lots of companys form F1 teams to Vacuum makers where working out ways of doing it.
Well at least one privet Lab is now also offering tests, for you or to gift to an NHS employee.
https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/europe/medbelle-offering-covid-19-tests-patients-uk-cost
I have a feeling some will object, but the real let down here is that the government is not using this resosers, and the worst outcome would be nobody make use of this supply of test kits
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/23/dissent-in-a-time-of-covid/