Spain is not quite as bleak as the media are trying to paint it, on a three day average new cases are flatlining at 8,200 approx and whilst deaths are still going up that is to be expected for a few days yet. Valencia day on day increase in new cases is 5% the lowest for a while. I see no sign of any large scale desire to break the lockdown, there are a declining number of fines etc being issued. Locally it’s becoming a highlight when the bin Larry comes round each night and the traffic has dropped by 95% on the road near me.
Just over 6k new cases today is not good. Spain seems out of the exponential growth period but it has not yet reached a peak.
Where did you get the 6k figure from? The figures on RTVE were 8,200 if you look at the graph from 25/3 then you can draw a horizontal straight line through it. I would hazard a guess and say that all being well they will have started slowly tailing off in a week.
That 8,200 looks suspiciuosly like the 8,195 reported by Worldometers for yesterday.
Or the rapid availability of (expensive, and in development) antibody prophylactics against the virus and/or a fast developed RNA vaccine (much cheaper, but likely to take longer), which could be used alongside track and trace on all contacts, or likely contacts of the infected.
Yes, the prophylactic route is potentially very interesting. From what I've read, there seems to be a very good understanding of how this virus works and some promising avenues for disrupting its effect on our bodies. That may well lead to some effective prophylactics, but presumably those would be brand new drugs and therefore take some time to get approved and into production.
Some perhaps, but a lot are being repurposed. Remdesivir is probably the most promising I think, but there are others being currently tested in a huge number of trials. There's a good reason to hope that one of them will have an effect upon the progression of the disease (especially combined with rapid testing, which could enable treatment to be received immediately following diagnosis).
That's slightly different. I was referring to the possibility of new drugs that healthy people, with no infection, would take to prevent them getting hit by the virus (or hit badly), in the same way that people take anti-malarial prophylactics. In this case it could for example be a drug with a very specific effect of interfering with the process by which the virus latches on the ACE-2 receptors.
No idea of its efficacy but I have got some coldzyme which claims to do something like that. Not specifically against covid19 but generally against colds including coronaviruses.
Spain is not quite as bleak as the media are trying to paint it, on a three day average new cases are flatlining at 8,200 approx and whilst deaths are still going up that is to be expected for a few days yet. Valencia day on day increase in new cases is 5% the lowest for a while. I see no sign of any large scale desire to break the lockdown, there are a declining number of fines etc being issued. Locally it’s becoming a highlight when the bin Larry comes round each night and the traffic has dropped by 95% on the road near me.
Just over 6k new cases today is not good. Spain seems out of the exponential growth period but it has not yet reached a peak.
Where did you get the 6k figure from? The figures on RTVE were 8,200 if you look at the graph from 25/3 then you can draw a horizontal straight line through it. I would hazard a guess and say that all being well they will have started slowly tailing off in a week.
6,120 is their exact figure. We had this issue a couple of days ago. There are clearly some discrepancies in the way that the numbers are collated.
Worldometer add the numbers from Catalunya in the evening (they are published around 10pm); these figures get folded into the daily Spain-wide updates.
Thanks. Was not aware of that. So the Spanish figures are even worse (if not becoming increasingly worse).
I'm at ~ 5 known/suspected cases out of my facebook friends and colleagues/partners. That's a group of approx 520 people so 5/520 = 1.2%. All mild or recovered cases thankfully.
How are everyone else's acquaintances numbers looking ?
[Nitpick] 5/520 must be <1% [/Nitpick]</p>
Sorry it is 6/520.
4 friends 'but for' isolation I'd have come into contact with, 1 who lives miles away and 1 coworker's wife.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
Just signed the change.org 'provide PPE to all frontline staff' petition.
While I appreciate the gesture, no petition can magic up supplies.
Absolutely true although registering a concern might push governments into greater action.
Haven't they been delivering this equipment already at an incredible rate? The PM mentioned something about hundreds of millions of pieces of kit.
Here in Wales we have a distinct lack of masks and visors. Testing too has collapsed after a spat with HoffmanLaRoche. I am not getting at the Westminster Government which I can see from PB is beyond reproach.
Well, he didn't mention what type, so it could be hundreds of millions of pairs of gloves and nothing else.
I have it on terrible authority that it's actually just half a billion left-handed gloves.
You can take a swab with one hand, right?
Well, probably. But on the other hand, no, I definitely can't.
Or the rapid availability of (expensive, and in development) antibody prophylactics against the virus and/or a fast developed RNA vaccine (much cheaper, but likely to take longer), which could be used alongside track and trace on all contacts, or likely contacts of the infected.
Yes, the prophylactic route is potentially very interesting. From what I've read, there seems to be a very good understanding of how this virus works and some promising avenues for disrupting its effect on our bodies. That may well lead to some effective prophylactics, but presumably those would be brand new drugs and therefore take some time to get approved and into production.
Some perhaps, but a lot are being repurposed. Remdesivir is probably the most promising I think, but there are others being currently tested in a huge number of trials. There's a good reason to hope that one of them will have an effect upon the progression of the disease (especially combined with rapid testing, which could enable treatment to be received immediately following diagnosis).
That's slightly different. I was referring to the possibility of new drugs that healthy people, with no infection, would take to prevent them getting hit by the virus (or hit badly), in the same way that people take anti-malarial prophylactics. In this case it could for example be a drug with a very specific effect of interfering with the process by which the virus latches on the ACE-2 receptors.
Would blood pressure medication work ?
There are competing claims at the moment, some stating that it will make it more likely that you are infected and some the complete opposite! As someone who takes them, this is not exactly helpful. Current advice is to keep taking ACE inhibitors but I'm not likely to put myself in danger until they've come up with a definitive conclusion.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
Of course they will at least initially due to the two week incubation period. If we use the results of tests appropriately then two weeks later things should improve.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
It's nothing like the global warming debate (the wisdom of a coronavirus lock down is not yet settled science), people paid by fossil fuel billionaires to spread misinformation have been given far too much credence for far too long in the interests of "balance" The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. With the earth (a system as complex as the human body) we have a sample of 1 out of a population of 1, with the patient in the early stages of a hitherto unknown disease, and all we can do is model outcomes. Most of the debate about covid is a great deal more settled than that.
The uncertainty about what will happen if we keep adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is mostly on the (extreme) downside. Which is one of the reasons why I'm convinced it's madness to continue burning fossil fuels, and to continue to do so little as a species to burn less. But I don't know how much or how long we should keep locking down, which measures are the most effective, at what point keeping things closed down does more harm than good etc and I would be surprised if there are anything like exact answers to these questions yet.
The reasoning behind the lockdown was explained at the beginning. It is to slow new cases (flatten the curve) so that the NHS is not overwhelmed and therefore those infected or ill due to other causes have a decent chance of survival and the benefit of more experience in dealing with the disease. Even if widespread antibody testing does not become available the logic is that the lockdown can be relaxed when hospital admissions fall and the models show sufficient treatment headroom. Relaxation of the lockdown I reckon will be incremental and differential (maintained longer for vulnerable and direct carers). It might also have to be increased again if admissions surge. Lots of testing helps (particularly for NHS headroom by reducing staff absences) and for verifying the models but does not change the logic.
It seems this message needs to be posted every four hours on this forum.
Just signed the change.org 'provide PPE to all frontline staff' petition.
While I appreciate the gesture, no petition can magic up supplies.
Absolutely true although registering a concern might push governments into greater action.
Haven't they been delivering this equipment already at an incredible rate? The PM mentioned something about hundreds of millions of pieces of kit.
Here in Wales we have a distinct lack of masks and visors. Testing too has collapsed after a spat with HoffmanLaRoche. I am not getting at the Westminster Government which I can see from PB is beyond reproach.
Well, he didn't mention what type, so it could be hundreds of millions of pairs of gloves and nothing else.
I have it on terrible authority that it's actually just half a billion left-handed gloves.
Just signed the change.org 'provide PPE to all frontline staff' petition.
I'm sure that will help. Maybe Matt will get off his bed of sick and hand over all the boxes of PPE that he has been secretly squirreling away in the hope that he could re-sell them to that fetish site that was linked to here the other day.
It is not just Matt. Here in Wales the failing Assembly Government needs to pull its finger out. In England things may be going much better.
I frankly refuse to believe that anyone in authority anywhere, whether the Tories in England, Labour in Wales or the SNP in Scotland is not moving heaven and earth to get as many tests and as much PPE to the front line as possible. It's just inconceivable. All of us wish there was more but blaming politicians of any stripe for not achieving the impossible is unproductive and pointless.
Philip Lee explains this was war gamed two years ago. Did the results not get past the Severn Bridge until late May 2020?
The question of whether more should have been done in the past is a different question. The provisional answer is yes but anyone with common sense would appreciate that those allocating resources within the NHS were not exactly short of choices on which to spend the money available.
We are now 10 years into a Tory government, only 3 governments since WW2 have lasted more than 10 years and only 1 government, the Tories in 1992, won a general election after more than 10 years in power.
So the Government should have expected things to get much tougher even without Covid 19 and a likely new and more centrist and media savvy Labour leader
At risk of being pedantic, only two governments have lasted more than ten years since World War Two. A government in our system is identified by who leads it, not which party forms it.
Except in the case of a national government a government in our system is actually defined by the party which forms it, we have not had a national government since WW2 but single party government bar 2010 to 2015 which was still a Tory led Government
That is simply not correct in law. It is in practice, of course, but constitutionally parties have no actual role in the system. A government is defined by the person who leads it, which under usual circumstances is whoever commands a majority in the Commons.
We have no written constitution, the Ministers of the Crown have all come from one party in any one government since WW2 bar 2010 to 2015 when most of them were still Tory
Even that isn’t correct, as in the 1950s the Liberal Nationals were still a separate party.
John Maclay was backed by the Tories in a straight fight against Labour in West Renfrewshire, he was only a National Liberal in name in reality a Tory and ultimately it became the National Liberal and Conservative party before merging into the Tories too
Leaving aside the trifling detail that you don’t seem to understand what they were or how they operated, it occurs to me that Gwilym Lloyd George was still officially a Liberal while Home Secretary in the mid-1950s, although he had lost the Liberal whip in 1946. So you would still be wrong.
Let it go. Trying to defend an indefensible position just makes you look silly, although I know you’re used to that.
Gwilym Lloyd George stood as a National Liberal and Conservative in 1945 and 1950 and in 1951 Churchill endorsed his candidacy
No, he did not. I think you’ve taken that off Wikipedia, and it is wrong. He stood ‘as a Liberal, supportive of the National Government.’ (Richard Toye, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness, p. 393.) In 1951 he actually faced a Conservative candidate at Newcastle although Churchill had asked that he be given a clear run at Labour.
Now if you wish to tell me you know his political allegiance better than he did, based on reading a Wikipedia article, be my guest. Forgive me if I go with his statements and therefore to come back to the point:
1) Parties do not form governments, Prime Ministers do;
2) There have been multiparty governments in Britain since 1945;
3) This is because parties have no technical role in the House of Commons, MPs being elected as individuals.
If you don’t like those trifling facts, that is your problem. Can you stop bothering the rest of us with them though so we can get on with important subjects, including awesome punning and why pineapple should never be added to pizza?
Any evidence he did not stand on the ballot paper as a Liberal and National Conservative? No.
YES.
HIS. OWN. WORDS. WHICH. I. HAVE. QUOTED. FOR. YOU.
You just can’t bear to be proved wrong, can you? Honestly.
I find it doubly amusing you boast about your A-levels in politics and economics when you are trying to lecture an expert with a doctorate and a string of publications in this field based on a reading of an incorrect Wikipedia article.
The reasoning behind the lockdown was explained at the beginning. It is to slow new cases (flatten the curve) so that the NHS is not overwhelmed and therefore those infected or ill due to other causes have a decent chance of survival and the benefit of more experience in dealing with the disease. Even if widespread antibody testing does not become available the logic is that the lockdown can be relaxed when hospital admissions fall and the models show sufficient treatment headroom. Relaxation of the lockdown I reckon will be incremental and differential (maintained longer for vulnerable and direct carers). It might also have to be increased again if admissions surge. Lots of testing helps (particularly for NHS headroom by reducing staff absences) and for verifying the models but does not change the logic.
That was the original thinking but at this point it seems like you might need to flatten the curve over years or decades. In practice the short term response for this is mostly the same as if you're trying to get as close as you can to suppressing it entirely, so I guess it makes sense to wait for more data before deciding between those.
I'm at ~ 5 known/suspected cases out of my facebook friends and colleagues/partners. That's a group of approx 520 people so 5/520 = 1.2%. All mild or recovered cases thankfully.
How are everyone else's acquaintances numbers looking ?
One friend/colleague isolated with symptoms. One partner of a friend/colleague isolating with symptoms (and my friend/colleague, who so far has no symptoms). That's excluding PB of course. I've not been keeping up with my Facebook though (not done for years, not just during this) so the pool is smaller.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
It's nothing like the global warming debate (the wisdom of a coronavirus lock down is not yet settled science), people paid by fossil fuel billionaires to spread misinformation have been given far too much credence for far too long in the interests of "balance" The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. With the earth (a system as complex as the human body) we have a sample of 1 out of a population of 1, with the patient in the early stages of a hitherto unknown disease, and all we can do is model outcomes. Most of the debate about covid is a great deal more settled than that.
I don't want to start a fight about it either (disclosure: I agree) but the policies of lockdown are a huge quantum leap from anything that has ever been contemplated in terms of reduction of carbon emissions. If the effect of massive reductions in flights, traffic, manufacturing, vessel movement etc are measurable then we will surely have the definitive answer as to whether anthropomorphic global warming is a thing.
It will certainly provide some fab data! So we should be grateful to CV for that just as we should be grateful to the Swedes for trialing non-intervention so that we don't have to (though I expect them to cave in the next 48 hours).
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. ...
I have two worries about the virus:
1. We are testing such a small sample of the population that we are leaving ourselves open to misinterpreting the data along the lines of Berkson's Paradox.
and ...
2. Mr C has a sore throat, no dry cough, a runny nose and a headache. Is it the bug? We have no idea. We are assuming that it is the bug.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
It's nothing like the global warming debate (the wisdom of a coronavirus lock down is not yet settled science), people paid by fossil fuel billionaires to spread misinformation have been given far too much credence for far too long in the interests of "balance" The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. With the earth (a system as complex as the human body) we have a sample of 1 out of a population of 1, with the patient in the early stages of a hitherto unknown disease, and all we can do is model outcomes. Most of the debate about covid is a great deal more settled than that.
The uncertainty about what will happen if we keep adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is mostly on the (extreme) downside. Which is one of the reasons why I'm convinced it's madness to continue burning fossil fuels, and to continue to do so little as a species to burn less. But I don't know how much or how long we should keep locking down, which measures are the most effective, at what point keeping things closed down does more harm than good etc and I would be surprised if there are anything like exact answers to these questions yet.
The big challenge is to find a way for non-fossil fuel energy to reduce the costs quicker than the drop in demand for fossil-fuel will reduce its price. We have recently seen what happens to oil prices when supply is higher than demand, and that cheap oil is bound to be burnt some time in the near future.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
The Chancellor is to announce that banks will be banned from asking small firms for personal guarantees on loans and relax other rules to ensure businesses can access the money they need. Companies trying to use the emergency loan scheme said banks had been demanding the guarantees and charging double-digit interest rates.
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. ...
I have two worries about the virus:
1. We are testing such a small sample of the population that we are leaving ourselves open to misinterpreting the data along the lines of Berkson's Paradox.
and ...
2. Mr C has a sore throat, no dry cough, a runny nose and a headache. Is it the bug? We have no idea. We are assuming that it is the bug.
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. ...
I have two worries about the virus:
1. We are testing such a small sample of the population that we are leaving ourselves open to misinterpreting the data along the lines of Berkson's Paradox.
and ...
2. Mr C has a sore throat, no dry cough, a runny nose and a headache. Is it the bug? We have no idea. We are assuming that it is the bug.
2. I'd assume no - but act as if it is.
You're missing the two primary symptoms (dry cough and fever), the tertiary symptom quoted a lot (loss of smell and taste) and have 2 symptoms more associated with the common cold etc (runny nose and headache).
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Spain is not quite as bleak as the media are trying to paint it, on a three day average new cases are flatlining at 8,200 approx and whilst deaths are still going up that is to be expected for a few days yet. Valencia day on day increase in new cases is 5% the lowest for a while. I see no sign of any large scale desire to break the lockdown, there are a declining number of fines etc being issued. Locally it’s becoming a highlight when the bin Larry comes round each night and the traffic has dropped by 95% on the road near me.
Just over 6k new cases today is not good. Spain seems out of the exponential growth period but it has not yet reached a peak.
Where did you get the 6k figure from? The figures on RTVE were 8,200 if you look at the graph from 25/3 then you can draw a horizontal straight line through it. I would hazard a guess and say that all being well they will have started slowly tailing off in a week.
6,120 is their exact figure. We had this issue a couple of days ago. There are clearly some discrepancies in the way that the numbers are collated.
Spain update their numbers twice a day and they're reported as rolling 24 hour totals everywhere except on worldometer, where they give the change from midnight.
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. ...
I have two worries about the virus:
1. We are testing such a small sample of the population that we are leaving ourselves open to misinterpreting the data along the lines of Berkson's Paradox.
and ...
2. Mr C has a sore throat, no dry cough, a runny nose and a headache. Is it the bug? We have no idea. We are assuming that it is the bug.
Good to see you still posting! I think you're doing the right thing with your zinc/vit C protocol. Saw another recommendation on Linkedin to add fish oil (easy to do) and CBD oil (not so easy to get hold of). I am sure that whatever your husband has, you'll both be able to get through.
The reasoning behind the lockdown was explained at the beginning. It is to slow new cases (flatten the curve) so that the NHS is not overwhelmed and therefore those infected or ill due to other causes have a decent chance of survival and the benefit of more experience in dealing with the disease. Even if widespread antibody testing does not become available the logic is that the lockdown can be relaxed when hospital admissions fall and the models show sufficient treatment headroom. Relaxation of the lockdown I reckon will be incremental and differential (maintained longer for vulnerable and direct carers). It might also have to be increased again if admissions surge. Lots of testing helps (particularly for NHS headroom by reducing staff absences) and for verifying the models but does not change the logic.
It seems this message needs to be posted every four hours on this forum.
Has anyone asked the following questions, and got a scientific answer from an expert? -
1) How accurate is the current test? 2) How accurate is diagnosis from symptoms?
Just signed the change.org 'provide PPE to all frontline staff' petition.
I'm sure that will help. Maybe Matt will get off his bed of sick and hand over all the boxes of PPE that he has been secretly squirreling away in the hope that he could re-sell them to that fetish site that was linked to here the other day.
It is not just Matt. Here in Wales the failing Assembly Government needs to pull its finger out. In England things may be going much better.
I frankly refuse to believe that anyone in authority anywhere, whether the Tories in England, Labour in Wales or the SNP in Scotland is not moving heaven and earth to get as many tests and as much PPE to the front line as possible. It's just inconceivable. All of us wish there was more but blaming politicians of any stripe for not achieving the impossible is unproductive and pointless.
Philip Lee explains this was war gamed two years ago. Did the results not get past the Severn Bridge until late May 2020?
The question of whether more should have been done in the past is a different question. The provisional answer is yes but anyone with common sense would appreciate that those allocating resources within the NHS were not exactly short of choices on which to spend the money available.
It is not a party political point. Reporting here in Wales suggests that levels of PPE availability in Wales are inadequate at the beginning of the pandemic not at its peak. Surely if Philip Lee is correct this is a woeful oversight by WAG.
I am hearing anecdoatally of Medical staff in Wales procuring their own makeshift PPE from Screwfix depots.
We are now 10 years into a Tory government, only 3 governments since WW2 have lasted more than 10 years and only 1 government, the Tories in 1992, won a general election after more than 10 years in power.
So the Government should have expected things to get much tougher even without Covid 19 and a likely new and more centrist and media savvy Labour leader
At risk of being pedantic, only two governments have lasted more than ten years since World War Two. A government in our system is identified by who leads it, not which party forms it.
Except in the case of a national government a government in our system is actually defined by the party which forms it, we have not had a national government since WW2 but single party government bar 2010 to 2015 which was still a Tory led Government
That is simply not correct in law. It is in practice, of course, but constitutionally parties have no actual role in the system. A government is defined by the person who leads it, which under usual circumstances is whoever commands a majority in the Commons.
We have no written constitution, the Ministers of the Crown have all come from one party in any one government since WW2 bar 2010 to 2015 when most of them were still Tory
Even that isn’t correct, as in the 1950s the Liberal Nationals were still a separate party.
John Maclay was backed by the Tories in a straight fight against Labour in West Renfrewshire, he was only a National Liberal in name in reality a Tory and ultimately it became the National Liberal and Conservative party before merging into the Tories too
Leaving aside the trifling detail that you don’t seem to understand what they were or how they operated, it occurs to me that Gwilym Lloyd George was still officially a Liberal while Home Secretary in the mid-1950s, although he had lost the Liberal whip in 1946. So you would still be wrong.
Let it go. Trying to defend an indefensible position just makes you look silly, although I know you’re used to that.
Gwilym Lloyd George stood as a National Liberal and Conservative in 1945 and 1950 and in 1951 Churchill endorsed his candidacy
No, he did not. I think you’ve taken that off Wikipedia, and it is wrong. He stood ‘as a Liberal, supportive of the National Government.’ (Richard Toye, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness, p. 393.) In 1951 he actually faced a Conservative candidate at Newcastle although Churchill had asked that he be given a clear run at Labour.
Now if you wish to tell me you know his political allegiance better than he did, based on reading a Wikipedia article, be my guest. Forgive me if I go with his statements and therefore to come back to the point:
1) Parties do not form governments, Prime Ministers do;
2) There have been multiparty governments in Britain since 1945;
3) This is because parties have no technical role in the House of Commons, MPs being elected as individuals.
If you don’t like those trifling facts, that is your problem. Can you stop bothering the rest of us with them though so we can get on with important subjects, including awesome punning and why pineapple should never be added to pizza?
Any evidence he did not stand on the ballot paper as a Liberal and National Conservative? No.
YES.
HIS. OWN. WORDS. WHICH. I. HAVE. QUOTED. FOR. YOU.
You just can’t bear to be proved wrong, can you? Honestly.
I find it doubly amusing you boast about your A-levels in politics and economics when you are trying to lecture an expert with a doctorate and a string of publications in this field based on a reading of an incorrect Wikipedia article.
So you have no proof he did not stand as a National Liberal and Conservative on the ballot paper.
I could not care less if you have 10 phds and authored 100 books on it unless you have clear proof.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Why do you think you really want to "ramp it up" and "do it in huge numbers" if you don't think it's going to stop the virus spreading?
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
I wouldn't worry about the contact tracing so much, people will let their friends know if they've had it via facebook etc.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
It's nothing like the global warming debate (the wisdom of a coronavirus lock down is not yet settled science), people paid by fossil fuel billionaires to spread misinformation have been given far too much credence for far too long in the interests of "balance" The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. With the earth (a system as complex as the human body) we have a sample of 1 out of a population of 1, with the patient in the early stages of a hitherto unknown disease, and all we can do is model outcomes. Most of the debate about covid is a great deal more settled than that.
I don't want to start a fight about it either (disclosure: I agree) but the policies of lockdown are a huge quantum leap from anything that has ever been contemplated in terms of reduction of carbon emissions. If the effect of massive reductions in flights, traffic, manufacturing, vessel movement etc are measurable then we will surely have the definitive answer as to whether anthropomorphic global warming is a thing.
It will certainly provide some fab data! So we should be grateful to CV for that just as we should be grateful to the Swedes for trialing non-intervention so that we don't have to (though I expect them to cave in the next 48 hours).
Another jump today and I think that they will be in lockdown by the end of the weekend.
Just signed the change.org 'provide PPE to all frontline staff' petition.
I'm sure that will help. Maybe Matt will get off his bed of sick and hand over all the boxes of PPE that he has been secretly squirreling away in the hope that he could re-sell them to that fetish site that was linked to here the other day.
It is not just Matt. Here in Wales the failing Assembly Government needs to pull its finger out. In England things may be going much better.
I frankly refuse to believe that anyone in authority anywhere, whether the Tories in England, Labour in Wales or the SNP in Scotland is not moving heaven and earth to get as many tests and as much PPE to the front line as possible. It's just inconceivable. All of us wish there was more but blaming politicians of any stripe for not achieving the impossible is unproductive and pointless.
But I do think they need to be asking tougher questions of their experts who presumably have given the numbers they relied upon and are now being criticised for not delivering. To be clear, the buck stops with the politicians - but experts are on tap, not on top.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Why do you think you really want to "ramp it up" and "do it in huge numbers" if you don't think it's going to stop the virus spreading?
To understand the past spread of the virus, and allow people to carry on with their lives. It's not just me that wants this, the chief scientific advisor has been banging on about it for weeks now.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
accurately determining who has had the disease would make a substantial difference in several ways - firstly in hospitals. Having antibodies to the disease and having had x days of no symptoms means -
1) You have had the disease 2) You are now immune 3) You can't catch the disease and silently pass it to anyone.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
You don't understand either politics or economics at all.
There won't be a massive hike in tax.
No need to be patronising or rude, I have A grade A levels in both politics and economics. If central government had to bail out out all local councils then income tax and VAT would have to rise whether sharply in the short term or stretched out longer term
There's no if about it, central government will have to and it will be stretched out long term - but there won't be massive tax rises to pay for it.
If they have to bail out every council there will be tax rises
Unlikely though I note the subtle drop of the word "massive". We will be trying to get the economy off the floor - you don't do that with tax rises.
If you are bailing out councils tax rises will have to come over the short term or long term, the money will not come from nowhere
Money does come from nowhere. That's how money works in an economy unlike a household.
No it doesn't, unless production increases to match the money supply you get rapidly rising inflation
We are now 10 years into a Tory government, only 3 governments since WW2 have lasted more than 10 years and only 1 government, the Tories in 1992, won a general election after more than 10 years in power.
So the Government should have expected things to get much tougher even without Covid 19 and a likely new and more centrist and media savvy Labour leader
At risk of being pedantic, only two governments have lasted more than ten years since World War Two. A government in our system is identified by who leads it, not which party forms it.
Except in the case of a national government a government in our system is actually defined by the party which forms it, we have not had a national government since WW2 but single party government bar 2010 to 2015 which was still a Tory led Government
That is simply not correct in law. It is in practice, of course, but constitutionally parties have no actual role in the system. A government is defined by the person who leads it, which under usual circumstances is whoever commands a majority in the Commons.
We have no written constitution, the Ministers of the Crown have all come from one party in any one government since WW2 bar 2010 to 2015 when most of them were still Tory
Even that isn’t correct, as in the 1950s the Liberal Nationals were still a separate party.
John Maclay was backed by the Tories in a straight fight against Labour in West Renfrewshire, he was only a National Liberal in name in reality a Tory and ultimately it became the National Liberal and Conservative party before merging into the Tories too
Leaving aside the trifling detail that you don’t seem to understand what they were or how they operated, it occurs to me that Gwilym Lloyd George was still officially a Liberal while Home Secretary in the mid-1950s, although he had lost the Liberal whip in 1946. So you would still be wrong.
Let it go. Trying to defend an indefensible position just makes you look silly, although I know you’re used to that.
Gwilym Lloyd George stood as a National Liberal and Conservative in 1945 and 1950 and in 1951 Churchill endorsed his candidacy
No, he did not. I think you’ve taken that off Wikipedia, and it is wrong. He stood ‘as a Liberal, supportive of the National Government.’ (Richard Toye, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness, p. 393.) In 1951 he actually faced a Conservative candidate at Newcastle although Churchill had asked that he be given a clear run at Labour.
Now if you wish to tell me you know his political allegiance better than he did, based on reading a Wikipedia article, be my guest. Forgive me if I go with his statements and therefore to come back to the point:
1) Parties do not form governments, Prime Ministers do;
2) There have been multiparty governments in Britain since 1945;
3) This is because parties have no technical role in the House of Commons, MPs being elected as individuals.
If you don’t like those trifling facts, that is your problem. Can you stop bothering the rest of us with them though so we can get on with important subjects, including awesome punning and why pineapple should never be added to pizza?
Any evidence he did not stand on the ballot paper as a Liberal and National Conservative? No.
YES.
HIS. OWN. WORDS. WHICH. I. HAVE. QUOTED. FOR. YOU.
You just can’t bear to be proved wrong, can you? Honestly.
I find it doubly amusing you boast about your A-levels in politics and economics when you are trying to lecture an expert with a doctorate and a string of publications in this field based on a reading of an incorrect Wikipedia article.
Can anyone join in this fun-fest? I don't believe that party affiliations were printed on the ballot paper until June 1970. But my Times Guide to the House of Commons 1955 has him standing as a Liberal and Conservative, including his narrow defeat in 1950.
The Chancellor is to announce that banks will be banned from asking small firms for personal guarantees on loans and relax other rules to ensure businesses can access the money they need. Companies trying to use the emergency loan scheme said banks had been demanding the guarantees and charging double-digit interest rates.
Good. Why on Earth would banks need security on loans that are explicitly underwritten by the government? That was the whole point of the government underwriting the loans in the first place!
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Why do you think you really want to "ramp it up" and "do it in huge numbers" if you don't think it's going to stop the virus spreading?
To understand the past spread of the virus, and allow people to carry on with their lives. It's not just me that wants this, the chief scientific advisor has been banging on about it for weeks now.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Yes it will. Better testing (especially if there's widespread spreading via asymptomatic individuals) will result in better isolation of those who are contagious.
Hypothetically if it was possible to very easily do an instantaneous test en-masse, like a breathalyser or a diabetics blood sugar test then you could get everyone to do a test daily and if showing positive isolate.
We are now 10 years into a Tory government, only 3 governments since WW2 have lasted more than 10 years and only 1 government, the Tories in 1992, won a general election after more than 10 years in power.
So the Government should have expected things to get much tougher even without Covid 19 and a likely new and more centrist and media savvy Labour leader
At risk of being pedantic, only two governments have lasted more than ten years since World War Two. A government in our system is identified by who leads it, not which party forms it.
Except in the case of a national government a government in our system is actually defined by the party which forms it, we have not had a national government since WW2 but single party government bar 2010 to 2015 which was still a Tory led Government
That is simply not correct in law. It is in practice, of course, but constitutionally parties have no actual role in the system. A government is defined by the person who leads it, which under usual circumstances is whoever commands a majority in the Commons.
We have no written constitution, the Ministers of the Crown have all come from one party in any one government since WW2 bar 2010 to 2015 when most of them were still Tory
Even that isn’t correct, as in the 1950s the Liberal Nationals were still a separate party.
John Maclay was backed by the Tories in a straight fight against Labour in West Renfrewshire, he was only a National Liberal in name in reality a Tory and ultimately it became the National Liberal and Conservative party before merging into the Tories too
Leaving aside the trifling detail that you don’t seem to understand what they were or how they operated, it occurs to me that Gwilym Lloyd George was still officially a Liberal while Home Secretary in the mid-1950s, although he had lost the Liberal whip in 1946. So you would still be wrong.
Let it go. Trying to defend an indefensible position just makes you look silly, although I know you’re used to that.
Gwilym Lloyd George stood as a National Liberal and Conservative in 1945 and 1950 and in 1951 Churchill endorsed his candidacy
No, he did not. I think you’ve taken that off Wikipedia, and it is wrong. He stood ‘as a Liberal, supportive of the National Government.’ (Richard Toye, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness, p. 393.) In 1951 he actually faced a Conservative candidate at Newcastle although Churchill had asked that he be given a clear run at Labour.
Now if you wish to tell me you know his political allegiance better than he did, based on reading a Wikipedia article, be my guest. Forgive me if I go with his statements and therefore to come back to the point:
1) Parties do not form governments, Prime Ministers do;
2) There have been multiparty governments in Britain since 1945;
3) This is because parties have no technical role in the House of Commons, MPs being elected as individuals.
If you don’t like those trifling facts, that is your problem. Can you stop bothering the rest of us with them though so we can get on with important subjects, including awesome punning and why pineapple should never be added to pizza?
Any evidence he did not stand on the ballot paper as a Liberal and National Conservative? No.
YES.
HIS. OWN. WORDS. WHICH. I. HAVE. QUOTED. FOR. YOU.
You just can’t bear to be proved wrong, can you? Honestly.
I find it doubly amusing you boast about your A-levels in politics and economics when you are trying to lecture an expert with a doctorate and a string of publications in this field based on a reading of an incorrect Wikipedia article.
So you have no proof he did not stand as a National Liberal and Conservative on the ballot paper.
Surely as a matter of general logic burden of proof should be on those claiming someone did do something than the reverse?
I've never run a sub 3 hour marathon, but should people assume I have unless its somehow proved I did not?
I've no dog on this fight, and dont care what is proven.
I can see a major central London road from my window, it is normally at 5 mph and full throughout a working day and most of the evening.
Since the lockdown including today if I look I can normally but not always see at least one vehicle but the traffic is flowing very freely and Id say 90%+ down on normal.
And when I go for a run/walk I have noticed most buses have zero passengers, just the driver (admittedly those are timed to avoid whats left of rush hour).
TfL and other bus and train companies may need new subsidies before long because they are running services on almost no fare revenue.
Local govts generally will certainly need bailouts as well as businesses. Ive not been paying much attention on that front but it will need to be done if it hasnt already.
Or they massively increase council tax
Those have just been set and aiui are subject to caps on increases? Business rates are decimated, as is transport income. They will need bailouts from the centre.
Government could just end the caps this year, let councils take the flack for tax rises not just central government
No, it is not possible. The maths of this situation are that the costs are going to be paid back over the next 20-30 years. People in work would not be able to pay the council tax rise that would be needed, let alone those who have lost their jobs or were struggling before.
Fortunately the people at the Treasury are not so wedded to ideology as some, and will look at it pragmatically and mathematically.
So they can just pay the massive hike in income tax and VAT instead?
You don't understand either politics or economics at all.
There won't be a massive hike in tax.
No need to be patronising or rude, I have A grade A levels in both politics and economics. If central government had to bail out out all local councils then income tax and VAT would have to rise whether sharply in the short term or stretched out longer term
There's no if about it, central government will have to and it will be stretched out long term - but there won't be massive tax rises to pay for it.
If they have to bail out every council there will be tax rises
Unlikely though I note the subtle drop of the word "massive". We will be trying to get the economy off the floor - you don't do that with tax rises.
If you are bailing out councils tax rises will have to come over the short term or long term, the money will not come from nowhere
Money does come from nowhere. That's how money works in an economy unlike a household.
No it doesn't, unless production increases to match the money supply you get rapidly rising inflation
Indeed. The point is that money 'does' actually come from a magic money tree. But the value of money isn't fixed.
We are now 10 years into a Tory government, only 3 governments since WW2 have lasted more than 10 years and only 1 government, the Tories in 1992, won a general election after more than 10 years in power.
So the Government should have expected things to get much tougher even without Covid 19 and a likely new and more centrist and media savvy Labour leader
At risk of being pedantic, only two governments have lasted more than ten years since World War Two. A government in our system is identified by who leads it, not which party forms it.
Except in the case of a national government a government in our system is actually defined by the party which forms it, we have not had a national government since WW2 but single party government bar 2010 to 2015 which was still a Tory led Government
That is simply not correct in law. It is in practice, of course, but constitutionally parties have no actual role in the system. A government is defined by the person who leads it, which under usual circumstances is whoever commands a majority in the Commons.
We have no written constitution, the Ministers of the Crown have all come from one party in any one government since WW2 bar 2010 to 2015 when most of them were still Tory
Even that isn’t correct, as in the 1950s the Liberal Nationals were still a separate party.
John Maclay was backed by the Tories in a straight fight against Labour in West Renfrewshire, he was only a National Liberal in name in reality a Tory and ultimately it became the National Liberal and Conservative party before merging into the Tories too
Leaving aside the trifling detail that you don’t seem to understand what they were or how they operated, it occurs to me that Gwilym Lloyd George was still officially a Liberal while Home Secretary in the mid-1950s, although he had lost the Liberal whip in 1946. So you would still be wrong.
Let it go. Trying to defend an indefensible position just makes you look silly, although I know you’re used to that.
Gwilym Lloyd George stood as a National Liberal and Conservative in 1945 and 1950 and in 1951 Churchill endorsed his candidacy
No, he did not. I think you’ve taken that off Wikipedia, and it is wrong. He stood ‘as a Liberal, supportive of the National Government.’ (Richard Toye, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness, p. 393.) In 1951 he actually faced a Conservative candidate at Newcastle although Churchill had asked that he be given a clear run at Labour.
Now if you wish to tell me you know his political allegiance better than he did, based on reading a Wikipedia article, be my guest. Forgive me if I go with his statements and therefore to come back to the point:
1) Parties do not form governments, Prime Ministers do;
2) There have been multiparty governments in Britain since 1945;
3) This is because parties have no technical role in the House of Commons, MPs being elected as individuals.
If you don’t like those trifling facts, that is your problem. Can you stop bothering the rest of us with them though so we can get on with important subjects, including awesome punning and why pineapple should never be added to pizza?
Any evidence he did not stand on the ballot paper as a Liberal and National Conservative? No.
YES.
HIS. OWN. WORDS. WHICH. I. HAVE. QUOTED. FOR. YOU.
You just can’t bear to be proved wrong, can you? Honestly.
I find it doubly amusing you boast about your A-levels in politics and economics when you are trying to lecture an expert with a doctorate and a string of publications in this field based on a reading of an incorrect Wikipedia article.
Can anyone join in this fun-fest? I don't believe that party affiliations were printed on the ballot paper until June 1970. But my Times Guide to the House of Commons 1955 has him standing as a Liberal and Conservative, including his narrow defeat in 1950.
Thankyou, so I was correct then at least in terms of the party colours he campaigned on
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
It's nothing like the global warming debate (the wisdom of a coronavirus lock down is not yet settled science), people paid by fossil fuel billionaires to spread misinformation have been given far too much credence for far too long in the interests of "balance" The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. With the earth (a system as complex as the human body) we have a sample of 1 out of a population of 1, with the patient in the early stages of a hitherto unknown disease, and all we can do is model outcomes. Most of the debate about covid is a great deal more settled than that.
I don't want to start a fight about it either (disclosure: I agree) but the policies of lockdown are a huge quantum leap from anything that has ever been contemplated in terms of reduction of carbon emissions. If the effect of massive reductions in flights, traffic, manufacturing, vessel movement etc are measurable then we will surely have the definitive answer as to whether anthropomorphic global warming is a thing.
Global warming is occurring due to the accumulation of carbon emissions over time. You won't see a difference due to a temporary partial shutdown.
There will be some interesting data on some of the details - e.g. how pollution interacts directly with clouds, which will help.
Just signed the change.org 'provide PPE to all frontline staff' petition.
I'm sure that will help. Maybe Matt will get off his bed of sick and hand over all the boxes of PPE that he has been secretly squirreling away in the hope that he could re-sell them to that fetish site that was linked to here the other day.
It is not just Matt. Here in Wales the failing Assembly Government needs to pull its finger out. In England things may be going much better.
I frankly refuse to believe that anyone in authority anywhere, whether the Tories in England, Labour in Wales or the SNP in Scotland is not moving heaven and earth to get as many tests and as much PPE to the front line as possible. It's just inconceivable. All of us wish there was more but blaming politicians of any stripe for not achieving the impossible is unproductive and pointless.
But I do think they need to be asking tougher questions of their experts who presumably have given the numbers they relied upon and are now being criticised for not delivering. To be clear, the buck stops with the politicians - but experts are on tap, not on top.
I certainly do not think that they should be accepting optimistic aspirations as facts and presenting them to the public as facts. This has clearly happened. The challenge here in unprecedented. WW2 is probably the closest. What the government is trying to achieve on a number of fronts creates massive problems in implementation. We see this with help for the self employed coming in June by which time more than a hundred thousand small businesses will have collapsed. We see it with the government loan scheme which requires bankers to help make it work. On the medical side it requires a series of products which are in desperately short supply world wide.
They are doing their best but the communication issue is principally between the plans (which are bold, innovative and good) and the delivery. They need to be more aware of this.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
The more confirmed cases you get, the better the death rate looks (cf Germany).
In all seriousness, I can't really see a point to mass testing at this stage. We know it's widespread, and increasing tests by a factor of less than a hundred isn't going to give us any clearer a picture as to how widespread. The test isn't accurate enough to help individuals make decisions, and it's apparently throwing up false negatives rather than false positives, which makes it even less helpful.
So as far as I'm concerned they should test to the minimum level needed for front line staff and save the rest for the points in the epidemic where mass testing is helpful - for example in a few weeks, when we're trying to ascertain if the lockdown has resulted in a genuine slowdown of new infections.
"In line with Government advice on Covid-19, we have been running a reduced network for essential travel only. However, as more people rightly stay at home, we will be taking the following actions:
From 23:59 on Sunday 5 April all of our coach services will be temporarily suspended until further notice
With immediate effect we are no longer selling coach tickets on our website or through any sales channels for journeys after this date
We will contact you again, ahead of time, when this situation changes
It is clear that the critical thing we must all do is stay home, protect the NHS and save lives."
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Yes it will. Better testing (especially if there's widespread spreading via asymptomatic individuals) will result in better isolation of those who are contagious.
Hypothetically if it was possible to very easily do an instantaneous test en-masse, like a breathalyser or a diabetics blood sugar test then you could get everyone to do a test daily and if showing positive isolate.
If people have symptoms they should be isolating anyway. As for asymptomatic carriers, how are they identified with the current test? You'd have to repeatedly test a very large fraction of the population for that to be effective at identifying all of them to reduce the spread. At this point the virus is so well established that containment is not possible.
The Chancellor is to announce that banks will be banned from asking small firms for personal guarantees on loans and relax other rules to ensure businesses can access the money they need. Companies trying to use the emergency loan scheme said banks had been demanding the guarantees and charging double-digit interest rates.
Good. Why on Earth would banks need security on loans that are explicitly underwritten by the government? That was the whole point of the government underwriting the loans in the first place!
Is the government underwriting the loans now? Or still just 80%?
I can understand why the banks would want security if they're exposed to 20% of the loan. Just make it 100% and the banks won't care.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Why do you think you really want to "ramp it up" and "do it in huge numbers" if you don't think it's going to stop the virus spreading?
To understand the past spread of the virus, and allow people to carry on with their lives. It's not just me that wants this, the chief scientific advisor has been banging on about it for weeks now.
Obviously you can "understand the past spread" by doing random sampling.
But is your idea really to relax the lockdown on the basis of a minority testing positive for antibodies? And to enforce it only for those who haven't tested positive? Do you think there is the slightest chance that a partial lockdown like that would be obeyed or would be enforceable?
Peter Hitchens is a professional contrarian. He's worth hearing, if only to ask yourself why you think he's wrong.
How much you listen to him after that point is up to you.
Peter Hitchens is actually a very useful measuring instrument. To measure something it helps to have a fixed point above which it is not possible to go. In his case what he makes it easy to measure is how reactionary a person or an idea is. Because Peter is above all a reactionary. Always and forever, he is. He is not consistently right or left wing, he is 100% purest reactionary. Or if you prefer he is the antithesis of a progressive. This is his essence. I say this as observation not as insult or compliment. One cannot be more reactionary or less progressive than Peter Hitchens. It is as much of a law as the boiling point of water at sea level.
So how to use him? Piece of cake. Any idea you are discussing, you ask yourself "Would Peter like this notion?" Answer yes - it's a reactionary notion. No debate, it is. Any person you are conversing with, ask that person "How often do you agree with Peter Hitchens on a scale of 1 to 10?". Fantastic, this, because the answer - where they are on the PH scale - provides an exact quantification of how reactionary they are. PH10 being the maximum and something rarely if ever achieved. Not even the man himself is a PH10.
We are now 10 years into a Tory government, only 3 governments since WW2 have lasted more than 10 years and only 1 government, the Tories in 1992, won a general election after more than 10 years in power.
So the Government should have expected things to get much tougher even without Covid 19 and a likely new and more centrist and media savvy Labour leader
At risk of being pedantic, only two governments have lasted more than ten years since World War Two. A government in our system is identified by who leads it, not which party forms it.
Except in the case of a national government a government in our system is actually defined by the party which forms it, we have not had a national government since WW2 but single party government bar 2010 to 2015 which was still a Tory led Government
That is simply not correct in law. It is in practice, of course, but constitutionally parties have no actual role in the system. A government is defined by the person who leads it, which under usual circumstances is whoever commands a majority in the Commons.
We have no written constitution, the Ministers of the Crown have all come from one party in any one government since WW2 bar 2010 to 2015 when most of them were still Tory
Even that isn’t correct, as in the 1950s the Liberal Nationals were still a separate party.
John Maclay was backed by the Tories in a straight fight against Labour in West Renfrewshire, he was only a National Liberal in name in reality a Tory and ultimately it became the National Liberal and Conservative party before merging into the Tories too
Leaving aside the trifling detail that you don’t seem to understand what they were or how they operated, it occurs to me that Gwilym Lloyd George was still officially a Liberal while Home Secretary in the mid-1950s, although he had lost the Liberal whip in 1946. So you would still be wrong.
Let it go. Trying to defend an indefensible position just makes you look silly, although I know you’re used to that.
Gwilym Lloyd George stood as a National Liberal and Conservative in 1945 and 1950 and in 1951 Churchill endorsed his candidacy
No, he did not. I think you’ve taken that off Wikipedia, and it is wrong. He stood ‘as a Liberal, supportive of the National Government.’ (Richard Toye, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness, p. 393.) In 1951 he actually faced a Conservative candidate at Newcastle although Churchill had asked that he be given a clear run at Labour.
Now if you wish to tell me you know his political allegiance better than he did, based on reading a Wikipedia article, be my guest. Forgive me if I go with his statements and therefore to come back to the point:
1) Parties do not form governments, Prime Ministers do;
2) There have been multiparty governments in Britain since 1945;
3) This is because parties have no technical role in the House of Commons, MPs being elected as individuals.
If you don’t like those trifling facts, that is your problem. Can you stop bothering the rest of us with them though so we can get on with important subjects, including awesome punning and why pineapple should never be added to pizza?
Any evidence he did not stand on the ballot paper as a Liberal and National Conservative? No.
YES.
HIS. OWN. WORDS. WHICH. I. HAVE. QUOTED. FOR. YOU.
You just can’t bear to be proved wrong, can you? Honestly.
I find it doubly amusing you boast about your A-levels in politics and economics when you are trying to lecture an expert with a doctorate and a string of publications in this field based on a reading of an incorrect Wikipedia article.
Can anyone join in this fun-fest? I don't believe that party affiliations were printed on the ballot paper until June 1970. But my Times Guide to the House of Commons 1955 has him standing as a Liberal and Conservative, including his narrow defeat in 1950.
Thankyou, so I was correct then at least in terms of the party colours who campaigned on
But not as a National Liberal, which by the 1950s was another meaningless 'grouping' within the Conservative Party. Interestingly (sic), Dr Charles Hill was also elected for Luton as a Liberal and Conservative.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
It's nothing like the global warming debate (the wisdom of a coronavirus lock down is not yet settled science), people paid by fossil fuel billionaires to spread misinformation have been given far too much credence for far too long in the interests of "balance" The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. With the earth (a system as complex as the human body) we have a sample of 1 out of a population of 1, with the patient in the early stages of a hitherto unknown disease, and all we can do is model outcomes. Most of the debate about covid is a great deal more settled than that.
I don't want to start a fight about it either (disclosure: I agree) but the policies of lockdown are a huge quantum leap from anything that has ever been contemplated in terms of reduction of carbon emissions. If the effect of massive reductions in flights, traffic, manufacturing, vessel movement etc are measurable then we will surely have the definitive answer as to whether anthropomorphic global warming is a thing.
Global warming is occurring due to the accumulation of carbon emissions over time. You won't see a difference due to a temporary partial shutdown.
There will be some interesting data on some of the details - e.g. how pollution interacts directly with clouds, which will help.
IANAE but I was assured by a geologist that the effect of 9/11 on flights was measurable in the temperature of the upper atmosphere. This will exceed that globally many times over. Trees and crops are still growing, carbon is being sequestered. If it is not being replaced we should see this.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
Until there are enough people confirmed to have antibodies that they can run care homes and hospitals then it would be great to be able to test care workers and frontline health workers, to know if they actually have it.
The Chancellor is to announce that banks will be banned from asking small firms for personal guarantees on loans and relax other rules to ensure businesses can access the money they need. Companies trying to use the emergency loan scheme said banks had been demanding the guarantees and charging double-digit interest rates.
Good. Why on Earth would banks need security on loans that are explicitly underwritten by the government? That was the whole point of the government underwriting the loans in the first place!
Is the government underwriting the loans now? Or still just 80%?
I can understand why the banks would want security if they're exposed to 20% of the loan. Just make it 100% and the banks won't care.
What is the expected return of lending at 30% pa to a range of businesses, then getting a personal director guarantee, and a govt backstop at 80%?
Well over 20% even taking account of widespread bankruptcies and therefore unseemly profiteering from a govt scheme designed to support businesses not banks, imo.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Yes it will. Better testing (especially if there's widespread spreading via asymptomatic individuals) will result in better isolation of those who are contagious.
Hypothetically if it was possible to very easily do an instantaneous test en-masse, like a breathalyser or a diabetics blood sugar test then you could get everyone to do a test daily and if showing positive isolate.
There is a clear understanding now that it is not just exposure to the virus but the level of exposure that makes a difference. Rapid exposure to large doses can affect anyone including the most fit and healthy people. That is why we are developing hot spots with spiralling death rates.
Testing both of people and environments may not stop you being exposed eventually but can dramatically lower the exposure you will get. This will save lives.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Why do you think you really want to "ramp it up" and "do it in huge numbers" if you don't think it's going to stop the virus spreading?
To understand the past spread of the virus, and allow people to carry on with their lives. It's not just me that wants this, the chief scientific advisor has been banging on about it for weeks now.
Obviously you can "understand the past spread" by doing random sampling.
But is your idea really to relax the lockdown on the basis of a minority testing positive for antibodies? And to enforce it only for those who haven't tested positive? Do you think there is the slightest chance that a partial lockdown like that would be obeyed or would be enforceable?
No, understanding the past spread of the virus, in combination with hospital admissions etc., will inform the decision makers whether it is appropriate to lift various restrictions.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Yes it will. Better testing (especially if there's widespread spreading via asymptomatic individuals) will result in better isolation of those who are contagious.
Hypothetically if it was possible to very easily do an instantaneous test en-masse, like a breathalyser or a diabetics blood sugar test then you could get everyone to do a test daily and if showing positive isolate.
If people have symptoms they should be isolating anyway. As for asymptomatic carriers, how are they identified with the current test? You'd have to repeatedly test a very large fraction of the population for that to be effective at identifying all of them to reduce the spread. At this point the virus is so well established that containment is not possible.
Containment doesn't need to be possible to stop the virus spreading.
Lets take an example of the NHS. If a doctor or nurse is asymptomatic how many people could they infect?
Lets take an example of care homes. The only people going in and out of care homes now are the staff - but the staff are still having to go to the shops etc and can be exposed to the virus. An asymptomatic care staff carrier could take the virus into the care home where it could then spread like wildfire within the home.
If widespread testing were easily available then NHS and care staff etc could be tested at the start of every shift and sent home if they test positive before the get the chance to infect potentially dozens of other people.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
The more confirmed cases you get, the better the death rate looks (cf Germany).
In all seriousness, I can't really see a point to mass testing at this stage. We know it's widespread, and increasing tests by a factor of less than a hundred isn't going to give us any clearer a picture as to how widespread. The test isn't accurate enough to help individuals make decisions, and it's apparently throwing up false negatives rather than false positives, which makes it even less helpful.
So as far as I'm concerned they should test to the minimum level needed for front line staff and save the rest for the points in the epidemic where mass testing is helpful - for example in a few weeks, when we're trying to ascertain if the lockdown has resulted in a genuine slowdown of new infections.
Obviously they should be doing random testing to track the course of the epidemic. But you don't need mass testing for that.
If false negatives are a problem, I am still not entirely getting the point of testing NHS staff either. Perhaps the idea is that their work is so vital that the increase in the spread of the virus is acceptable, but I haven't seen that spelled out.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
Until there are enough people confirmed to have antibodies that they can run care homes and hospitals then it would be great to be able to test care workers and frontline health workers, to know if they actually have it.
Yeah, and once you've tested someone and they have the antibodies, they don't need to be tested for the virus ever again. Freeing up capacity for the "do you have it" test.
The Chancellor is to announce that banks will be banned from asking small firms for personal guarantees on loans and relax other rules to ensure businesses can access the money they need. Companies trying to use the emergency loan scheme said banks had been demanding the guarantees and charging double-digit interest rates.
Good. Why on Earth would banks need security on loans that are explicitly underwritten by the government? That was the whole point of the government underwriting the loans in the first place!
Is the government underwriting the loans now? Or still just 80%?
I can understand why the banks would want security if they're exposed to 20% of the loan. Just make it 100% and the banks won't care.
What is the expected return of lending at 30% pa to a range of businesses, then getting a personal director guarantee, and a govt backstop at 80%?
Well over 20% even taking account of widespread bankruptcies and therefore unseemly profiteering from a govt scheme designed to support businesses not banks, imo.
I wouldn't have a clue. It depends upon the rates of default.
Incidentally I'd assume the expected return of that is very different to the expected return of lending without a guarantee and an 80% backstop.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Why do you think you really want to "ramp it up" and "do it in huge numbers" if you don't think it's going to stop the virus spreading?
To understand the past spread of the virus, and allow people to carry on with their lives. It's not just me that wants this, the chief scientific advisor has been banging on about it for weeks now.
Obviously you can "understand the past spread" by doing random sampling.
But is your idea really to relax the lockdown on the basis of a minority testing positive for antibodies? And to enforce it only for those who haven't tested positive? Do you think there is the slightest chance that a partial lockdown like that would be obeyed or would be enforceable?
No, understanding the past spread of the virus, in combination with hospital admissions etc., will inform the decision makers whether it is appropriate to lift various restrictions.
As I said, you can "understand the past spread" by doing random sampling.
You were presenting mass testing as an imperative. I don't understand why.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Yes it will. Better testing (especially if there's widespread spreading via asymptomatic individuals) will result in better isolation of those who are contagious.
Hypothetically if it was possible to very easily do an instantaneous test en-masse, like a breathalyser or a diabetics blood sugar test then you could get everyone to do a test daily and if showing positive isolate.
If people have symptoms they should be isolating anyway. As for asymptomatic carriers, how are they identified with the current test? You'd have to repeatedly test a very large fraction of the population for that to be effective at identifying all of them to reduce the spread. At this point the virus is so well established that containment is not possible.
Containment doesn't need to be possible to stop the virus spreading.
Lets take an example of the NHS. If a doctor or nurse is asymptomatic how many people could they infect?
Lets take an example of care homes. The only people going in and out of care homes now are the staff - but the staff are still having to go to the shops etc and can be exposed to the virus. An asymptomatic care staff carrier could take the virus into the care home where it could then spread like wildfire within the home.
If widespread testing were easily available then NHS and care staff etc could be tested at the start of every shift and sent home if they test positive before the get the chance to infect potentially dozens of other people.
How many daily tests are you talking about here? It sounds like huge number that may not be feasible.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
Until there are enough people confirmed to have antibodies that they can run care homes and hospitals then it would be great to be able to test care workers and frontline health workers, to know if they actually have it.
Yeah, and once you've tested someone and they have the antibodies, they don't need to be tested for the virus ever again.
Even if there were no false negatives, there's virtually no evidence about how long immunity to this virus lasts.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
It's nothing like the global warming debate (the wisdom of a coronavirus lock down is not yet settled science), people paid by fossil fuel billionaires to spread misinformation have been given far too much credence for far too long in the interests of "balance" The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. With the earth (a system as complex as the human body) we have a sample of 1 out of a population of 1, with the patient in the early stages of a hitherto unknown disease, and all we can do is model outcomes. Most of the debate about covid is a great deal more settled than that.
I don't want to start a fight about it either (disclosure: I agree) but the policies of lockdown are a huge quantum leap from anything that has ever been contemplated in terms of reduction of carbon emissions. If the effect of massive reductions in flights, traffic, manufacturing, vessel movement etc are measurable then we will surely have the definitive answer as to whether anthropomorphic global warming is a thing.
Global warming is occurring due to the accumulation of carbon emissions over time. You won't see a difference due to a temporary partial shutdown.
There will be some interesting data on some of the details - e.g. how pollution interacts directly with clouds, which will help.
IANAE but I was assured by a geologist that the effect of 9/11 on flights was measurable in the temperature of the upper atmosphere. This will exceed that globally many times over. Trees and crops are still growing, carbon is being sequestered. If it is not being replaced we should see this.
There is virtually zero doubt that humans are responsible for the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that began around the time of the industrial revolution. As LostPassword writes, this is the result of many decades of accumulation. Against this background, the reduction of CO2 emissions due to Covid-19, while large, would barely be measurable unless it were to continue for a number of years.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
The more confirmed cases you get, the better the death rate looks (cf Germany).
In all seriousness, I can't really see a point to mass testing at this stage. We know it's widespread, and increasing tests by a factor of less than a hundred isn't going to give us any clearer a picture as to how widespread. The test isn't accurate enough to help individuals make decisions, and it's apparently throwing up false negatives rather than false positives, which makes it even less helpful.
So as far as I'm concerned they should test to the minimum level needed for front line staff and save the rest for the points in the epidemic where mass testing is helpful - for example in a few weeks, when we're trying to ascertain if the lockdown has resulted in a genuine slowdown of new infections.
Obviously they should be doing random testing to track the course of the epidemic. But you don't need mass testing for that.
If false negatives are a problem, I am still not entirely getting the point of testing NHS staff either. Perhaps the idea is that their work is so vital that the increase in the spread of the virus is acceptable, but I haven't seen that spelled out.
They are doing some random testing but the problem is it will be hard to get a balanced sample from that given the testing capacity constraints.
An opinion poll typically has over a thousand respondents and they still struggle to get a balanced sample - we obviously aren't in a position to randomly test a thousand people a day.
Plus it seems the situation in eg London will be completely different to other locales.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Yes it will. Better testing (especially if there's widespread spreading via asymptomatic individuals) will result in better isolation of those who are contagious.
Hypothetically if it was possible to very easily do an instantaneous test en-masse, like a breathalyser or a diabetics blood sugar test then you could get everyone to do a test daily and if showing positive isolate.
That'd be the dream, but you'd need 25 billion test reagents a year.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
It's nothing like the global warming debate (the wisdom of a coronavirus lock down is not yet settled science), people paid by fossil fuel billionaires to spread misinformation have been given far too much credence for far too long in the interests of "balance" The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. With the earth (a system as complex as the human body) we have a sample of 1 out of a population of 1, with the patient in the early stages of a hitherto unknown disease, and all we can do is model outcomes. Most of the debate about covid is a great deal more settled than that.
I don't want to start a fight about it either (disclosure: I agree) but the policies of lockdown are a huge quantum leap from anything that has ever been contemplated in terms of reduction of carbon emissions. If the effect of massive reductions in flights, traffic, manufacturing, vessel movement etc are measurable then we will surely have the definitive answer as to whether anthropomorphic global warming is a thing.
Global warming is occurring due to the accumulation of carbon emissions over time. You won't see a difference due to a temporary partial shutdown.
There will be some interesting data on some of the details - e.g. how pollution interacts directly with clouds, which will help.
IANAE but I was assured by a geologist that the effect of 9/11 on flights was measurable in the temperature of the upper atmosphere. This will exceed that globally many times over. Trees and crops are still growing, carbon is being sequestered. If it is not being replaced we should see this.
The idea of lockdowns being unknown isn't right is it? I thought plenty of places in the Western world implemented quite substantial Spanish flu lockdowns. The fact we all knew rather little about that does not mean is was unknown - those with the details know a good amount about how they operated, how they were released, how much repetition was needed, how long they lasted.
I don't get the sense that we're operating so very far outwith the standard playbook here.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Why do you think you really want to "ramp it up" and "do it in huge numbers" if you don't think it's going to stop the virus spreading?
To understand the past spread of the virus, and allow people to carry on with their lives. It's not just me that wants this, the chief scientific advisor has been banging on about it for weeks now.
Obviously you can "understand the past spread" by doing random sampling.
But is your idea really to relax the lockdown on the basis of a minority testing positive for antibodies? And to enforce it only for those who haven't tested positive? Do you think there is the slightest chance that a partial lockdown like that would be obeyed or would be enforceable?
No, understanding the past spread of the virus, in combination with hospital admissions etc., will inform the decision makers whether it is appropriate to lift various restrictions.
As I said, you can "understand the past spread" by doing random sampling.
You were presenting mass testing as an imperative. I don't understand why.
That's a fair point about random sampling which I hadn't appreciated, but you can see how it would be valuable for the type of workers that @Philip_Thompson was describing. If they have the antibody, they no longer need to be tested allowing you to test more people to see if they have it.
Why should he? Journalists should write whatever they like, we are not behind the iron curtain
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.'
Beginning to resemble the global warming debate - those with differing opinions must be hounded regardless of any data.
Stocky made the case against extending the lockdown on here yesterday eloquently and although most did not agree with him, it received widespread praise.
Differing opinions are welcomed by the vast majority, ill informed ranting less so.
It's nothing like the global warming debate (the wisdom of a coronavirus lock down is not yet settled science), people paid by fossil fuel billionaires to spread misinformation have been given far too much credence for far too long in the interests of "balance" The nutters some of whom still claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV are rightly ridiculed and ignored - hardly anybody complains (is it because they don't have a trillion dollar industry behind them that spends more on disinformation than any other?)
I don't want start a fight over global warming (disclosure: it is happening) but I think you have the science the wrong way round there. We know a feck of a lot about human beings, and about viruses, and about infection because we have access to literally billions of each, and lots of completed case studies about outcomes when the two get together. With the earth (a system as complex as the human body) we have a sample of 1 out of a population of 1, with the patient in the early stages of a hitherto unknown disease, and all we can do is model outcomes. Most of the debate about covid is a great deal more settled than that.
I don't want to start a fight about it either (disclosure: I agree) but the policies of lockdown are a huge quantum leap from anything that has ever been contemplated in terms of reduction of carbon emissions. If the effect of massive reductions in flights, traffic, manufacturing, vessel movement etc are measurable then we will surely have the definitive answer as to whether anthropomorphic global warming is a thing.
Global warming is occurring due to the accumulation of carbon emissions over time. You won't see a difference due to a temporary partial shutdown.
There will be some interesting data on some of the details - e.g. how pollution interacts directly with clouds, which will help.
IANAE but I was assured by a geologist that the effect of 9/11 on flights was measurable in the temperature of the upper atmosphere. This will exceed that globally many times over. Trees and crops are still growing, carbon is being sequestered. If it is not being replaced we should see this.
Yes, that's because of a local effect from the lack of contrails and water vapour from flights.
We are still emitting a lot of carbon emissions due to electricity generation and even in a theoretical scenario where all human emissions of carbon ceased the effect of reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere due to uptake by the ocean is balanced by the very long lag in heating of the ocean - so atmospheric temperatures stay static rather than fall.
And even then it would take 10-15 years to be able to tell the difference between static temperatures and rising temperatures (as we saw with the whole hiatus fiasco).
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
Until there are enough people confirmed to have antibodies that they can run care homes and hospitals then it would be great to be able to test care workers and frontline health workers, to know if they actually have it.
Yeah, and once you've tested someone and they have the antibodies, they don't need to be tested for the virus ever again.
Even if there were no false negatives, there's virtually no evidence about how long immunity to this virus lasts.
Is there evidence for other, similar, coronaviruses?
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Yes it will. Better testing (especially if there's widespread spreading via asymptomatic individuals) will result in better isolation of those who are contagious.
Hypothetically if it was possible to very easily do an instantaneous test en-masse, like a breathalyser or a diabetics blood sugar test then you could get everyone to do a test daily and if showing positive isolate.
If people have symptoms they should be isolating anyway. As for asymptomatic carriers, how are they identified with the current test? You'd have to repeatedly test a very large fraction of the population for that to be effective at identifying all of them to reduce the spread. At this point the virus is so well established that containment is not possible.
Containment doesn't need to be possible to stop the virus spreading.
Lets take an example of the NHS. If a doctor or nurse is asymptomatic how many people could they infect?
Lets take an example of care homes. The only people going in and out of care homes now are the staff - but the staff are still having to go to the shops etc and can be exposed to the virus. An asymptomatic care staff carrier could take the virus into the care home where it could then spread like wildfire within the home.
If widespread testing were easily available then NHS and care staff etc could be tested at the start of every shift and sent home if they test positive before the get the chance to infect potentially dozens of other people.
How many daily tests are you talking about here? It sounds like huge number that may not be feasible.
The PM spoke about ramping up to 250,000 daily tests. Do that and you could test all frontline healthcare staff daily - and track and trace suspected cases.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Yes it will. Better testing (especially if there's widespread spreading via asymptomatic individuals) will result in better isolation of those who are contagious.
Hypothetically if it was possible to very easily do an instantaneous test en-masse, like a breathalyser or a diabetics blood sugar test then you could get everyone to do a test daily and if showing positive isolate.
If people have symptoms they should be isolating anyway. As for asymptomatic carriers, how are they identified with the current test? You'd have to repeatedly test a very large fraction of the population for that to be effective at identifying all of them to reduce the spread. At this point the virus is so well established that containment is not possible.
Containment doesn't need to be possible to stop the virus spreading.
Lets take an example of the NHS. If a doctor or nurse is asymptomatic how many people could they infect?
Lets take an example of care homes. The only people going in and out of care homes now are the staff - but the staff are still having to go to the shops etc and can be exposed to the virus. An asymptomatic care staff carrier could take the virus into the care home where it could then spread like wildfire within the home.
If widespread testing were easily available then NHS and care staff etc could be tested at the start of every shift and sent home if they test positive before the get the chance to infect potentially dozens of other people.
How many daily tests are you talking about here? It sounds like huge number that may not be feasible.
The PM spoke about ramping up to 250,000 daily tests. Do that and you could test all frontline healthcare staff daily - and track and trace suspected cases.
Given the struggle to get only to 10,000, I stand by my 'may not be feasible' comment!
Peter Hitchens is a professional contrarian. He's worth hearing, if only to ask yourself why you think he's wrong.
How much you listen to him after that point is up to you.
Peter Hitchens is actually a very useful measuring instrument. To measure something it helps to have a fixed point above which it is not possible to go. In his case what he makes it easy to measure is how reactionary a person or an idea is. Because Peter is above all a reactionary. Always and forever, he is. He is not consistently right or left wing, he is 100% purest reactionary. Or if you prefer he is the antithesis of a progressive. This is his essence. I say this as observation not as insult or compliment. One cannot be more reactionary or less progressive than Peter Hitchens. It is as much of a law as the boiling point of water at sea level.
So how to use him? Piece of cake. Any idea you are discussing, you ask yourself "Would Peter like this notion?" Answer yes - it's a reactionary notion. No debate, it is. Any person you are conversing with, ask that person "How often do you agree with Peter Hitchens on a scale of 1 to 10?". Fantastic, this, because the answer - where they are on the PH scale - provides an exact quantification of how reactionary they are. PH10 being the maximum and something rarely if ever achieved. Not even the man himself is a PH10.
He's also performed a useful public service by collating a more-or-less exhaustive list of all "experts" in the world who agree with him. By so doing, he effectively nullifies his own appeal by authority, by illustrating just how many experts there are who agree that he's wrong.
On the subject of PH (or more precisely pH) I've just seen a facebook post claiming that the virus has a pH of 5.5-8.5, and therefore you can kill it by eating lots of alkaline foods. Like avocados. Which have a pH of 15.6. Apparently.
Does anyone know anyone who can boost the agenda for switching the air con off?
I am still wavering between thinking people need to be protected from Coronavirus, and that the healthy need a mild dose of it. However, in a hospital with vulnerable people and medical staff being repeatedly exposed, the case for it being switched off to help minimise spread is in my opinion undeniable, and it could save lives. In particular, surely switching it off would be beneficial in the new super-hospitals.
I've been following the conversation on PB about the coronavirus for a while now. There are a lot of interesting points being made.
Anyone who's interested in government policy and response to threats like this may find Nassim Nicholas Taleb's twitter useful. I've read his book "Antifragile" and his opinions go against a lot of what governments and the WHO have been saying.
Basically his view is, that statistical and epidemiological models count for jack all because what we are dealing with is an extreme "fat tail" statistical event, and therefore we cannot ascertain risk or apply data-driven policy to it.
Instead we should be looking at what is the worst case scenario, and then overkill even that in terms of policy response.
He talks about upside vs downside, and that many things not recommended by the WHO and governments, eg. wearing masks, chloroquine, and other things like that, should just be implemented without waiting for full testing, because the downside risk of just using them is minimal vs the *potential* upside if they do happen to work in the face of the enormous impending disaster.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
The more confirmed cases you get, the better the death rate looks (cf Germany).
In all seriousness, I can't really see a point to mass testing at this stage. We know it's widespread, and increasing tests by a factor of less than a hundred isn't going to give us any clearer a picture as to how widespread. The test isn't accurate enough to help individuals make decisions, and it's apparently throwing up false negatives rather than false positives, which makes it even less helpful.
So as far as I'm concerned they should test to the minimum level needed for front line staff and save the rest for the points in the epidemic where mass testing is helpful - for example in a few weeks, when we're trying to ascertain if the lockdown has resulted in a genuine slowdown of new infections.
Obviously they should be doing random testing to track the course of the epidemic. But you don't need mass testing for that.
If false negatives are a problem, I am still not entirely getting the point of testing NHS staff either. Perhaps the idea is that their work is so vital that the increase in the spread of the virus is acceptable, but I haven't seen that spelled out.
The PCR tests are very accurate but can be negative because the virus was not collected correctly or more likely did not survive the transfer from test to lab. This is a major issue and increases with time from test to analysis. They will never give a false positive unless the lab becomes infected. A good system would have test results within 48 hours at most. This would allow people with initial symptoms to self isolate rapidly and contact others. It would also stop them being exposed to further doses. This is crucial with NHS staff.
Spain is not quite as bleak as the media are trying to paint it, on a three day average new cases are flatlining at 8,200 approx and whilst deaths are still going up that is to be expected for a few days yet. Valencia day on day increase in new cases is 5% the lowest for a while. I see no sign of any large scale desire to break the lockdown, there are a declining number of fines etc being issued. Locally it’s becoming a highlight when the bin Larry comes round each night and the traffic has dropped by 95% on the road near me.
Just over 6k new cases today is not good. Spain seems out of the exponential growth period but it has not yet reached a peak.
Where did you get the 6k figure from? The figures on RTVE were 8,200 if you look at the graph from 25/3 then you can draw a horizontal straight line through it. I would hazard a guess and say that all being well they will have started slowly tailing off in a week.
6,120 is their exact figure. We had this issue a couple of days ago. There are clearly some discrepancies in the way that the numbers are collated.
Worldometer add the numbers from Catalunya in the evening (they are published around 10pm); these figures get folded into the daily Spain-wide updates.
Thanks. Was not aware of that. So the Spanish figures are even worse (if not becoming increasingly worse).
Best place to go is RTVE El mapa del coronavirus en España: 10.013 muertos y más de 110.000 casos updated about 11 your time with details by region etc also new cases and deaths graphed
My good lady wife has now been out allegedly at Tesco's for more than an hour.
Do I assume:
(a) that there is a very long queue to get into the shop; (b) that she is indulging in a wild affair in breach of her social distancing obligations? (c) that she was involved in a fight to the death for the last piece of dried pasta and, very uncharacteristically, lost? (d) all of the above?
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
Until there are enough people confirmed to have antibodies that they can run care homes and hospitals then it would be great to be able to test care workers and frontline health workers, to know if they actually have it.
Yeah, and once you've tested someone and they have the antibodies, they don't need to be tested for the virus ever again.
Even if there were no false negatives, there's virtually no evidence about how long immunity to this virus lasts.
Is there evidence for other, similar, coronaviruses?
What I've read is that it's rare for people to be infected with the same coronavirus twice in the same flu season or in two successive flu seasons.
So we can hope, but we can't assume that applies to this virus.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
How is the antibody test going to magically stop the virus spreading?
It's not, but neither is increasing testing numbers at this stage.
Yes it will. Better testing (especially if there's widespread spreading via asymptomatic individuals) will result in better isolation of those who are contagious.
Hypothetically if it was possible to very easily do an instantaneous test en-masse, like a breathalyser or a diabetics blood sugar test then you could get everyone to do a test daily and if showing positive isolate.
That'd be the dream, but you'd need 25 billion test reagents a year.
So be it. Get that far and I doubt the pandemic will last a year.
It should be an ambition. The Germans are up to 75k daily tests. I don't see why we shouldn't be targeting 250k daily tests (as the PM himself said) at the peak of testing.
We need a national effort like we had with ventilators to do whatever it takes to get the reagents produced and in circulation as fast as possible.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
Until there are enough people confirmed to have antibodies that they can run care homes and hospitals then it would be great to be able to test care workers and frontline health workers, to know if they actually have it.
Yeah, and once you've tested someone and they have the antibodies, they don't need to be tested for the virus ever again.
Even if there were no false negatives, there's virtually no evidence about how long immunity to this virus lasts.
Is there evidence for other, similar, coronaviruses?
What I've read is that it's rare for people to be infected with the same coronavirus twice in the same flu season or in two successive flu seasons.
So we can hope, but we can't assume that applies to this virus.
It would be unfortunate for everyone if this was different from the rest of them.
Those carrying out the testing at IKEA Wembley dont have the right PPE.
FFS can those organising this go off and run a brewery instead
I could imagine this been done giving the enormous pressure to increase testing numbers.
What happens when the test numbers rise and the deaths keep on increasing ?
They should really be ramping up for the antibody test, that's the one you want to do in huge numbers. I am not sure what the benefit is of testing hundreds of thousands of people to know if they actually have it. I don't think contact tracing is a thing anymore? But they've committed themselves to it, and the pressure is there for them to do it, regardless of whether or not it is the best thing to do.
Until there are enough people confirmed to have antibodies that they can run care homes and hospitals then it would be great to be able to test care workers and frontline health workers, to know if they actually have it.
Yeah, and once you've tested someone and they have the antibodies, they don't need to be tested for the virus ever again.
Even if there were no false negatives, there's virtually no evidence about how long immunity to this virus lasts.
It only needs to last long enough for this particular viral strain to die out, or mutate into something less nasty. Which, given how effective it is at spreading, should be pretty quick (since there's only a finite number of potential hosts for it).
Comments
https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/research-briefing/enzyme-mouth-spray-could-shorten-cold-duration/20206215.article?firstPass=false
4 friends 'but for' isolation I'd have come into contact with, 1 who lives miles away and 1 coworker's wife.
But I don't know how much or how long we should keep locking down, which measures are the most effective, at what point keeping things closed down does more harm than good etc and I would be surprised if there are anything like exact answers to these questions yet.
HIS. OWN. WORDS. WHICH. I. HAVE. QUOTED. FOR. YOU.
You just can’t bear to be proved wrong, can you? Honestly.
I find it doubly amusing you boast about your A-levels in politics and economics when you are trying to lecture an expert with a doctorate and a string of publications in this field based on a reading of an incorrect Wikipedia article.
https://twitter.com/kirsty_brimelow/status/1245599075732348928?s=21
1. We are testing such a small sample of the population that we are leaving ourselves open to misinterpreting the data along the lines of Berkson's Paradox.
and ...
2. Mr C has a sore throat, no dry cough, a runny nose and a headache. Is it the bug? We have no idea. We are assuming that it is the bug.
You're missing the two primary symptoms (dry cough and fever), the tertiary symptom quoted a lot (loss of smell and taste) and have 2 symptoms more associated with the common cold etc (runny nose and headache).
I see ABZ gave a more precise explanation.
1) How accurate is the current test?
2) How accurate is diagnosis from symptoms?
I am hearing anecdoatally of Medical staff in Wales procuring their own makeshift PPE from Screwfix depots.
I could not care less if you have 10 phds and authored 100 books on it unless you have clear proof.
I note you also did not dispute my other points
1) You have had the disease
2) You are now immune
3) You can't catch the disease and silently pass it to anyone.
Hypothetically if it was possible to very easily do an instantaneous test en-masse, like a breathalyser or a diabetics blood sugar test then you could get everyone to do a test daily and if showing positive isolate.
I've never run a sub 3 hour marathon, but should people assume I have unless its somehow proved I did not?
I've no dog on this fight, and dont care what is proven.
There will be some interesting data on some of the details - e.g. how pollution interacts directly with clouds, which will help.
They are doing their best but the communication issue is principally between the plans (which are bold, innovative and good) and the delivery. They need to be more aware of this.
In all seriousness, I can't really see a point to mass testing at this stage. We know it's widespread, and increasing tests by a factor of less than a hundred isn't going to give us any clearer a picture as to how widespread. The test isn't accurate enough to help individuals make decisions, and it's apparently throwing up false negatives rather than false positives, which makes it even less helpful.
So as far as I'm concerned they should test to the minimum level needed for front line staff and save the rest for the points in the epidemic where mass testing is helpful - for example in a few weeks, when we're trying to ascertain if the lockdown has resulted in a genuine slowdown of new infections.
"In line with Government advice on Covid-19, we have been running a reduced network for essential travel only. However, as more people rightly stay at home, we will be taking the following actions:
From 23:59 on Sunday 5 April all of our coach services will be temporarily suspended until further notice
With immediate effect we are no longer selling coach tickets on our website or through any sales channels for journeys after this date
We will contact you again, ahead of time, when this situation changes
It is clear that the critical thing we must all do is stay home, protect the NHS and save lives."
I can understand why the banks would want security if they're exposed to 20% of the loan. Just make it 100% and the banks won't care.
But is your idea really to relax the lockdown on the basis of a minority testing positive for antibodies? And to enforce it only for those who haven't tested positive? Do you think there is the slightest chance that a partial lockdown like that would be obeyed or would be enforceable?
So how to use him? Piece of cake. Any idea you are discussing, you ask yourself "Would Peter like this notion?" Answer yes - it's a reactionary notion. No debate, it is. Any person you are conversing with, ask that person "How often do you agree with Peter Hitchens on a scale of 1 to 10?". Fantastic, this, because the answer - where they are on the PH scale - provides an exact quantification of how reactionary they are. PH10 being the maximum and something rarely if ever achieved. Not even the man himself is a PH10.
Well over 20% even taking account of widespread bankruptcies and therefore unseemly profiteering from a govt scheme designed to support businesses not banks, imo.
Testing both of people and environments may not stop you being exposed eventually but can dramatically lower the exposure you will get. This will save lives.
Lets take an example of the NHS. If a doctor or nurse is asymptomatic how many people could they infect?
Lets take an example of care homes. The only people going in and out of care homes now are the staff - but the staff are still having to go to the shops etc and can be exposed to the virus. An asymptomatic care staff carrier could take the virus into the care home where it could then spread like wildfire within the home.
If widespread testing were easily available then NHS and care staff etc could be tested at the start of every shift and sent home if they test positive before the get the chance to infect potentially dozens of other people.
If false negatives are a problem, I am still not entirely getting the point of testing NHS staff either. Perhaps the idea is that their work is so vital that the increase in the spread of the virus is acceptable, but I haven't seen that spelled out.
Incidentally I'd assume the expected return of that is very different to the expected return of lending without a guarantee and an 80% backstop.
You were presenting mass testing as an imperative. I don't understand why.
Biden Calls for Democratic Convention to Be Delayed Because of Virus
An opinion poll typically has over a thousand respondents and they still struggle to get a balanced sample - we obviously aren't in a position to randomly test a thousand people a day.
Plus it seems the situation in eg London will be completely different to other locales.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/04/01/cigarette-maker-claims-coronavirus-vaccine-breakthrough/
I don't get the sense that we're operating so very far outwith the standard playbook here.
We are still emitting a lot of carbon emissions due to electricity generation and even in a theoretical scenario where all human emissions of carbon ceased the effect of reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere due to uptake by the ocean is balanced by the very long lag in heating of the ocean - so atmospheric temperatures stay static rather than fall.
And even then it would take 10-15 years to be able to tell the difference between static temperatures and rising temperatures (as we saw with the whole hiatus fiasco).
On the subject of PH (or more precisely pH) I've just seen a facebook post claiming that the virus has a pH of 5.5-8.5, and therefore you can kill it by eating lots of alkaline foods. Like avocados. Which have a pH of 15.6. Apparently.
I am still wavering between thinking people need to be protected from Coronavirus, and that the healthy need a mild dose of it. However, in a hospital with vulnerable people and medical staff being repeatedly exposed, the case for it being switched off to help minimise spread is in my opinion undeniable, and it could save lives. In particular, surely switching it off would be beneficial in the new super-hospitals.
@FrancisUrquhart @Foxy
Anyone who's interested in government policy and response to threats like this may find Nassim Nicholas Taleb's twitter useful. I've read his book "Antifragile" and his opinions go against a lot of what governments and the WHO have been saying.
Basically his view is, that statistical and epidemiological models count for jack all because what we are dealing with is an extreme "fat tail" statistical event, and therefore we cannot ascertain risk or apply data-driven policy to it.
Instead we should be looking at what is the worst case scenario, and then overkill even that in terms of policy response.
He talks about upside vs downside, and that many things not recommended by the WHO and governments, eg. wearing masks, chloroquine, and other things like that, should just be implemented without waiting for full testing, because the downside risk of just using them is minimal vs the *potential* upside if they do happen to work in the face of the enormous impending disaster.
El mapa del coronavirus en España: 10.013 muertos y más de 110.000 casos updated about 11 your time with details by region etc also new cases and deaths graphed
Do I assume:
(a) that there is a very long queue to get into the shop;
(b) that she is indulging in a wild affair in breach of her social distancing obligations?
(c) that she was involved in a fight to the death for the last piece of dried pasta and, very uncharacteristically, lost?
(d) all of the above?
So we can hope, but we can't assume that applies to this virus.
It should be an ambition. The Germans are up to 75k daily tests. I don't see why we shouldn't be targeting 250k daily tests (as the PM himself said) at the peak of testing.
We need a national effort like we had with ventilators to do whatever it takes to get the reagents produced and in circulation as fast as possible.
sad though.
Unless it can use other species as hosts?