A friend of mine from church died of it this morning.
So sorry Foxy. My condolences.
Re the weekend effect, I find the fraction of positives (under 30%) as more encouraging. The number of deaths will likely have a weekend effect unfortunately.
Probably just means more of the tests are random.
Death count back to the start of last week is a good sign - even adjusting for last week's weekend effect (30% reduction from Sat to Mon) that's lower than both this Friday's and Saturday's totals. Reduction in absolute number of new cases despite increase in testing capacity is also a good sign. Needs a few more days to convert to genuine green shoots.
A friend of mine from church died of it this morning.
So sorry Foxy. My condolences.
Re the weekend effect, I find the fraction of positives (under 30%) as more encouraging. The number of deaths will likely have a weekend effect unfortunately.
Yes, the reduction in the fraction of positives is a huge step forward.
Maybe, maybe not. Iran has a very young population and, outside Tehran, a low population density. They probably don't travel about as much as westerners either.
You might want to read reports from Iran about the people ignoring lockdowns let alone stories of numbers dead
Promising numbers today. If the UK line continues to flatten and the government start to make noises about relaxing lockdown they will justifiably get credit for how they have handled this shit-fest so far. Deferring to scientific advisors was the key.
Perhaps the government should have deferred to South Korea's scientific advisors.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
If it's an obviously idiotic plan, then the leaders of Sweden have to be, in your eyes, genocidally stupid to be sticking to it for so long after everyone else has given up on it.
How stupid do you have to be to portray the Swedish government as having a policy of infecting two-thirds of the population over a two month period - when in fact what they are doing is adopting a different approach to other countries in trying to slow the spread of the virus?
Feel free to clarify whether you really were so stupid that you thought that's what the Swedish government was trying to do - infecting two-thirds of the population over a two month period - or whether you weren't that stupid, but were just tryng to score a cheap point on an Internet discussion board - perhaps assuming that most readers would be too stupid to appreciate the difference.
As polls indicate well over half the Swedish population fear getting the virus - a big jump compared with ten days ago - their electorate might be losing confidence in them, too.
Am I reading right that Priti Patel is only just now trying to close UK borders or some such. I forgot to bolt in one of our nags last night, she didn't wonder off very far, there might be an analogy I'm seaching for here...
The casual attitude to border control would be astonishing if it hadn't been already happening for decades.
It links back to the earlier comments about EU/EEA and Free Movement. It was clear that a major factor in us voting to leave was that we wanted to control our borders and EU (not Schengen) membership meant we couldn't. So it really is compare and contrast time when the same people banging on about controlling our borders now complain that our free and controlled borders are left open whilst EU Schengen can't be closed borders were shut weeks ago.
What was before won't be in future. I'd be gobsmacked if the endless free movement area of EU Schengen ever comes back, and the absolute right to live anywhere we like which didn't exist definitely won't exist afterwards as states will rightly want to know the disease status of people coming and going.
So the arguments for walking away from the EEA (confused with the EU so often by Brexit supporters) make even less sense when we like everyone else are desperately trying to restart basic trading arrangements in the New World we find ourselves with. Don't be surprised if the new trading deal we sign up to looks awfully similar to the new trading / border arrangements the rest of the EU adopt. Boris or his successor will still dress it up as black even if we can all see that its white. Huzzah etc
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
If it's an obviously idiotic plan, then the leaders of Sweden have to be, in your eyes, genocidally stupid to be sticking to it for so long after everyone else has given up on it.
How stupid do you have to be to portray the Swedish government as having a policy of infecting two-thirds of the population over a two month period - when in fact what they are doing is adopting a different approach to other countries in trying to slow the spread of the virus?
Feel free to clarify whether you really were so stupid that you thought that's what the Swedish government was trying to do - infecting two-thirds of the population over a two month period - or whether you weren't that stupid, but were just tryng to score a cheap point on an Internet discussion board - perhaps assuming that most readers would be too stupid to appreciate the difference.
Oh, I understand now. You're not arguing over whether or not it was sensible or not - it's purely a political point-scoring thing.
People shrink quite a bit through their lives, so if he was 5'10 as a youngster it is unlikely he would be taller than 5'9 now. Most people seem to think they are the height they were when they were a youngster, so often overquote not out of false pride but because of not allowing for shrinkage. Some just round up as well.
You do lose an inch or two in height but your ears get bigger. So you know - every cloud.
As long as the government isn't seen as actively going against the advice of their scientific officers they will generally be fine.
That doesn't mean that mistakes weren't made, and that questions won't (rightly be asked) of course.
As I recollect, the choice that the government had to make boiled down to one of mitigation or suppression. Mitigation was the high-risk, low-cost strategy, based on optimistic assumptions about the infectiousness and lethality of the virus. This was the path the government initially chose, hoping to contain the virus without the major economic damage of a full lockdown (like Sweden). The danger with this approach was that if the assumptions made were too optimistic, and a suppression approach were needed, then valuable time would have been lost.
This, of course, is exactly what happened. Data from Italy showed that the assumptions were indeed too optimistic, and so the government quickly switched to a suppression strategy. Sadly, the delay in implementing the suppression strategy means that more lives will be lost than if the strategy had been implemented immediately, and that a longer, harder lockdown is required, meaning even more economic damage.
tl;dr: Boris took a gamble, and lost.
True, but only necessarily over the short term - lockdowns shift deaths in to the future, where they might be avoided by: (a) avoiding overwhelming health services (b) improving care, e.g. determining optimal mix of already approved pharmaceuticals/other interventions OR, by effectively eliminating COVID-19 by (c) a vaccine (d) contact tracing and targeted isolation (e) herd immunity
(a) is likely doable with cycled lock-downs/restrictions and better contact tracing (and could perhaps have been done to the same extent by slight softer restrictions, sooner) (b) is the big unknown - maybe we'll find something very effective and COVID-19 will no longer be that big a deal (treatment for just as many in hospital maybe, but very few needing ICU) (c) is a long way off - the economic costs of maintaining a heavy lockdown until then :-o (d) may be possible, particularly with close borders and sufficiently few infections at the start, needs a lot of testing though (e) only achievable by a lot of people getting infected
If (b) and (d) aren't successful then we're only reducing overall deaths thanks to (a), until vaccine or herd immunity happen. Those saved by (a) might still be a significant number (also among preventable non-COVID-19 deaths).
I'm amazed that PBers are still talking about their hoped for foreign holidays.
No chance.
Aside from the medical situation people would be well advised saving their money for the hard years ahead.
My sister and family are booked to go to Greece in May - Tui won't cancel and refund them the money.
Lets see what happens. Holiday plan for the summer is drive to Spain for a fortnight mid August with the in-laws. We may be back up and running as a continent by then. Happily our holiday is driving (not yet paid) and a villa rental that is cash in hand on arrival with local letting firm we've used for years. So the cost to cancel is zero.
I'm amazed that PBers are still talking about their hoped for foreign holidays.
No chance.
Aside from the medical situation people would be well advised saving their money for the hard years ahead.
Bollox to that, I`m living life to the full when freedom is restored. Whole month skiing next winter methinks.
Ischgl should be spotlessly clean by then.
The reality is that relaxation of the rules will need to be slow and cautious, likely to include back steps too.
I may be able to make the Isle of Wight in June though.
Love Ischgl. Bit pricey for Austria, but still much cheaper than France. Decent sized ski area. High. Nice, authentic town. Night skiing at Galthur just down the road.
Promising numbers today. If the UK line continues to flatten and the government start to make noises about relaxing lockdown they will justifiably get credit for how they have handled this shit-fest so far. Deferring to scientific advisors was the key.
Perhaps the government should have deferred to South Korea's scientific advisors.
Well if they had a crystal ball, together with access to all of the nations` scientific adivisers maybe so . You are asking a lot aren`t you.
I'm amazed that PBers are still talking about their hoped for foreign holidays.
No chance.
Aside from the medical situation people would be well advised saving their money for the hard years ahead.
Bollox to that, I`m living life to the full when freedom is restored. Whole month skiing next winter methinks.
Ischgl should be spotlessly clean by then.
The reality is that relaxation of the rules will need to be slow and cautious, likely to include back steps too.
I may be able to make the Isle of Wight in June though.
Love Ischgl. Bit pricey for Austria, but still much cheaper than France. Decent sized ski area. High. Nice, authentic town. Night skiing at Galthur just down the road.
Promising numbers today. If the UK line continues to flatten and the government start to make noises about relaxing lockdown they will justifiably get credit for how they have handled this shit-fest so far. Deferring to scientific advisors was the key.
Perhaps the government should have deferred to South Korea's scientific advisors.
Well if they had a crystal ball, together with access to all of the nations` scientific adivisers maybe so . You are asking a lot aren`t you.
I'm amazed that PBers are still talking about their hoped for foreign holidays.
No chance.
Aside from the medical situation people would be well advised saving their money for the hard years ahead.
Bollox to that, I`m living life to the full when freedom is restored. Whole month skiing next winter methinks.
Ischgl should be spotlessly clean by then.
The reality is that relaxation of the rules will need to be slow and cautious, likely to include back steps too.
I may be able to make the Isle of Wight in June though.
Love Ischgl. Bit pricey for Austria, but still much cheaper than France. Decent sized ski area. High. Nice, authentic town. Night skiing at Galthur just down the road.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Where are tens of thousands coming from. You are losing it
Italy's already on 15k and we seem to be following in their footsteps.
Are you suggesting that HMG could have avoided all the deaths
That is crazy
No. But the population of South Korea is ~50m to our ~70m. They had their 10th death on Feb 25th, 16 days before ours. We'd overtaken them in deaths by by March 18th, and now we've had almost 5k deaths to their 183. They followed the WHO's advice, we didn't.
Maybe the difference in deaths won't quite be 10s of thousands by the time this is all over, but it doesn't seem at all unrealstic. And we'll never really know what trajectory we would have followed had we listened to the experts, it might not have been the same as SK's. But I don't think either assertion is at all "crazy" or requires "losing it" to believe, as you've said.
We simply couldn't have done a South Korea unless we'd started planning for it several years earlier. We could have locked down perhaps a couple of weeks earlier (as was suggested). which would probably have avoided at least two doublings of the number of people infected, and all that follows from that...
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Where are tens of thousands coming from. You are losing it
Italy's already on 15k and we seem to be following in their footsteps.
Are you suggesting that HMG could have avoided all the deaths
That is crazy
No. But the population of South Korea is ~50m to our ~70m. They had their 10th death on Feb 25th, 16 days before ours. We'd overtaken them in deaths by by March 18th, and now we've had almost 5k deaths to their 183. They followed the WHO's advice, we didn't.
Maybe the difference in deaths won't quite be 10s of thousands by the time this is all over, but it doesn't seem at all unrealstic. And we'll never really know what trajectory we would have followed had we listened to the experts, it might not have been the same as SK's. But I don't think either assertion is at all "crazy" or requires "losing it" to believe, as you've said.
We simply couldn't have done a South Korea unless we'd started planning for it several years earlier. We could have locked down perhaps a couple of weeks earlier (as was suggested). which would probably have avoided at least two doublings of the number of people infected, and all that follows from that...
We could however have done a New Zealand. But we missed the chance.
I say yet again. The policy of two thirds of the population getting the virus in two months was so obviously insane that anyone in their right mind should have been able to understand that.
You should have been able to. Everyone here should have been able to.
I hope this is all brought out into the open in due course. But let's be clear that politicians should have been as able to tell the policy was insane as anyone else.
They would certainly do it differently if they had their time again.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
If it's an obviously idiotic plan, then the leaders of Sweden have to be, in your eyes, genocidally stupid to be sticking to it for so long after everyone else has given up on it.
How stupid do you have to be to portray the Swedish government as having a policy of infecting two-thirds of the population over a two month period - when in fact what they are doing is adopting a different approach to other countries in trying to slow the spread of the virus?
Feel free to clarify whether you really were so stupid that you thought that's what the Swedish government was trying to do - infecting two-thirds of the population over a two month period - or whether you weren't that stupid, but were just tryng to score a cheap point on an Internet discussion board - perhaps assuming that most readers would be too stupid to appreciate the difference.
Oh, I understand now. You're not arguing over whether or not it was sensible or not - it's purely a political point-scoring thing.
Strawman arguments. Got it.
No - you prat - I'm pointing out that you were implying Sweden supported the crazy herd immunity policy, when they did no such thing.
Honor Blackman, "Pussy Galore" dead at 94. Natural causes.
Could be stroke, heart attack etc
That's one thing I've been wondering about during this crisis. Whats happening with all the people having non-Covid medical emergencies?
Presumably the same number of people as usual are still having heart attacks, strokes, etc, etc? What is the NHS doing with these patients?
Great innings at did a lot with her life
Dealing with them - a relative is in this position. Seems that they are shuffling things round to *try* and not send people to some hospitals - but send them to others.
The questions are borderline childish - basically just wanting to create a drama for entertainment purposes. Let's be honest - that's what 95% of news is now - entertainment.
And Newton-Dunn can't even get basic fact correct - he thought Whitty had recommended Boris go into hospital.
The questions are borderline childish - basically just wanting to create a drama for entertainment purposes. Let's be honest - that's what 95% of news is now - entertainment.
And Newton-Dunn can't even get basic fact correct - he thought Whitty had recommended Boris go into hospital.
Well, you can't allow medically knowledgable journalists ro report on a medical story - they might "F&*K the story" by not reporting something dramatic and a pile of bollocks.
If that's what they said this is one case where I'd agree with those talking about lack of clarity. A lot of people who listen to 'until at least X' will hear 'it will end on X'.
I'm amazed that PBers are still talking about their hoped for foreign holidays.
No chance.
Aside from the medical situation people would be well advised saving their money for the hard years ahead.
The only holiday of any sort I’ve booked is in North Wales in July.
I’m hoping for the lockdown to have eased by then...
We will give you a pass to visit our goats
The irony of that remark is my father very frequently does visit them. Not as a bizarre hobby, you understand, but because he is an expert on goat husbandry and advises the local authority on their welfare.
Wow British journalists are poor - how can an experienced senior journalist think it’s acceptable to ask for medical details of a patient from a person who a) is a professional so wouldn’t talk about it any way and b) has nothing to do with the person’s medical care?
As well as showing himself to be a huge dick he wasted his questions - so much poor questioning and writing with people still treating this as a political soap opera
Yeah, that % positives seems to be a common trend. Italy's graph did the same thing, increasing % until day 12/13 of lockdown then nosediving .... which is the point we're at.
Wow British journalists are poor - how can an experienced senior journalist think it’s acceptable to ask for medical details of a patient from a person who a) is a professional so wouldn’t talk about it any way and b) has nothing to do with the person’s medical care?
As well as showing himself to be a huge dick he wasted his questions - so much poor questioning and writing with people still treating this as a political soap opera
Well yes of course. As the day's gone on and he's not been discharged then clearly this has changed from "routine tests" to something much more serious.
I'd say if Boris is still in hospital and showing no signs of getting better and/or getting worse by Friday he'll have to resign (temporarily at least) but i's worth leaving it a few more days to see if he can bounce back.
Less than one day, so far, is hardly an indication it is going to continue indefinitely. I'd assume the situation is under constant review, even Boris will have to change tack if he is hospital for an extended period by doing something more formal.
Wow British journalists are poor - how can an experienced senior journalist think it’s acceptable to ask for medical details of a patient from a person who a) is a professional so wouldn’t talk about it any way and b) has nothing to do with the person’s medical care?
As well as showing himself to be a huge dick he wasted his questions - so much poor questioning and writing with people still treating this as a political soap opera
Well yes of course. As the day's gone on and he's not been discharged then clearly this has changed from routine tests to something much more serious.
I'd say if Boris is still in hospital and showing no signs of getting better and/or getting worse by Friday he'll have to resign (temporarily at least) but i's worth leaving it a few more days to see if he can bounce back.
It'd be in his own interest to rest. Which I suspect he is being forced to now more than when he was cooped up in his apartment.
Honor Blackman, "Pussy Galore" dead at 94. Natural causes.
Could be stroke, heart attack etc
That's one thing I've been wondering about during this crisis. Whats happening with all the people having non-Covid medical emergencies?
Presumably the same number of people as usual are still having heart attacks, strokes, etc, etc? What is the NHS doing with these patients?
Yes, it is a problem.
A lot of planned surgery is cancelled, and the risks of admitting patients with stroke etc are not insignificant. My workplace is the least socially distanced place that I have been in weeks.
In Leicester we are continuing all trauma surgery and urgent cancer stuff. The problem is more the urgent but not life or limb threatening stuff.
Certainly I would expect mortality from other conditions to rise as an indirect result.
Well yes of course. As the day's gone on and he's not been discharged then clearly this has changed from routine tests to something much more serious.
I'd say if Boris is still in hospital and showing no signs of getting better and/or getting worse by Friday he'll have to resign (temporarily at least) but i's worth leaving it a few more days to see if he can bounce back.
There wouldn't be a need to resign, but he'd have to explicitly delegate responsibility to Raab I'd guess, none of this 'he's still in charge' stuff. And I'd put the timetable as more midweek.
I don't necessarily agree, it's just that they don't want to let people know in advance when they might be relaxing the lockdown, because they don't want to give people any excuse to "jump the gun" so to speak.
Well yes of course. As the day's gone on and he's not been discharged then clearly this has changed from "routine tests" to something much more serious.
I'd say if Boris is still in hospital and showing no signs of getting better and/or getting worse by Friday he'll have to resign (temporarily at least) but i's worth leaving it a few more days to see if he can bounce back.
When was the last time power was formally if temporarily handed over to a deputy because of long term illness? I want to say Eden to Butler in 1956, but is there a more recent example?
If that's what they said this is one case where I'd agree with those talking about lack of clarity. A lot of people who listen to 'until at least X' will hear 'it will end on X'.
I'm presuming that they are thinking this week (as the last week of the original period to be reviewed) plus another three week period (to be reviewed later). That was only implicit, though, not overtly stated at any point (and they are understandably refusing to be pinned down, given that things might not proceed as planned).
Honor Blackman, "Pussy Galore" dead at 94. Natural causes.
Could be stroke, heart attack etc
That's one thing I've been wondering about during this crisis. Whats happening with all the people having non-Covid medical emergencies?
Presumably the same number of people as usual are still having heart attacks, strokes, etc, etc? What is the NHS doing with these patients?
Yes, it is a problem.
A lot of planned surgery is cancelled, and the risks of admitting patients with stroke etc are not insignificant. My workplace is the least socially distanced place that I have been in weeks.
In Leicester we are continuing all trauma surgery and urgent cancer stuff. The problem is more the urgent but not life or limb threatening stuff.
Certainly I would expect mortality from other conditions to rise as an indirect result.
Is there any attempt to send non-COVID patients to some hospitals and the COVID patients to others? Seems to be what is happening in London (I *think*, based on a relatives experience)
Wow British journalists are poor - how can an experienced senior journalist think it’s acceptable to ask for medical details of a patient from a person who a) is a professional so wouldn’t talk about it any way and b) has nothing to do with the person’s medical care?
As well as showing himself to be a huge dick he wasted his questions - so much poor questioning and writing with people still treating this as a political soap opera
Experienced in what, pray?
Well it’s the Sun so the gags should write themselves... but it’s not just him it’s Peston who seems to actually be a bit dim (I used to think he was playing devil’s advocate but no he’s just thick) and so many others.
The questions are borderline childish - basically just wanting to create a drama for entertainment purposes. Let's be honest - that's what 95% of news is now - entertainment.
And Newton-Dunn can't even get basic fact correct - he thought Whitty had recommended Boris go into hospital.
The Scottish journalists quizzing Sturgeon are a lot better.
Wow British journalists are poor - how can an experienced senior journalist think it’s acceptable to ask for medical details of a patient from a person who a) is a professional so wouldn’t talk about it any way and b) has nothing to do with the person’s medical care?
As well as showing himself to be a huge dick he wasted his questions - so much poor questioning and writing with people still treating this as a political soap opera
Well yes of course. As the day's gone on and he's not been discharged then clearly this has changed from "routine tests" to something much more serious.
I'd say if Boris is still in hospital and showing no signs of getting better and/or getting worse by Friday he'll have to resign (temporarily at least) but i's worth leaving it a few more days to see if he can bounce back.
When was the last time power was formally if temporarily handed over to a deputy because of long term illness? I want to say Eden to Butler in 1956, but is there a more recent example?
The questions are borderline childish - basically just wanting to create a drama for entertainment purposes. Let's be honest - that's what 95% of news is now - entertainment.
And Newton-Dunn can't even get basic fact correct - he thought Whitty had recommended Boris go into hospital.
The Scottish journalists quizzing Sturgeon are a lot better.
Perhaps he is in for observation in the fear it might get worse? That doesn't mean it got worse straight away.
The public is entitled to understand how it is being governed. The government is doing an atrocious job of explaining. Speculation will run riot if more clarity is not provided.
This was obvious last night, still more obvious by lunchtime today and blisteringly clear now.
No, it wasn't the key question. Because it was 100% certain the question would not be answered.
In fact it was the key soundbite for entertainment purposes.
The Prime Minister is entitled to his medical privacy at such point and for so long as he stands aside from any role in government. While he is presented as having the hand on the tiller, the public are entitled to understand the basis on which he is running the show.
Comments
Death count back to the start of last week is a good sign - even adjusting for last week's weekend effect (30% reduction from Sat to Mon) that's lower than both this Friday's and Saturday's totals. Reduction in absolute number of new cases despite increase in testing capacity is also a good sign. Needs a few more days to convert to genuine green shoots.
Worth noting that the reporting of test numbers have changed, making trend discerning a bit trickier...
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1247138361606799360?s=20
What was before won't be in future. I'd be gobsmacked if the endless free movement area of EU Schengen ever comes back, and the absolute right to live anywhere we like which didn't exist definitely won't exist afterwards as states will rightly want to know the disease status of people coming and going.
So the arguments for walking away from the EEA (confused with the EU so often by Brexit supporters) make even less sense when we like everyone else are desperately trying to restart basic trading arrangements in the New World we find ourselves with. Don't be surprised if the new trading deal we sign up to looks awfully similar to the new trading / border arrangements the rest of the EU adopt. Boris or his successor will still dress it up as black even if we can all see that its white. Huzzah etc
Strawman arguments. Got it.
The reality is that relaxation of the rules will need to be slow and cautious, likely to include back steps too.
I may be able to make the Isle of Wight in June though.
(a) avoiding overwhelming health services
(b) improving care, e.g. determining optimal mix of already approved pharmaceuticals/other interventions
OR, by effectively eliminating COVID-19 by
(c) a vaccine
(d) contact tracing and targeted isolation
(e) herd immunity
(a) is likely doable with cycled lock-downs/restrictions and better contact tracing (and could perhaps have been done to the same extent by slight softer restrictions, sooner)
(b) is the big unknown - maybe we'll find something very effective and COVID-19 will no longer be that big a deal (treatment for just as many in hospital maybe, but very few needing ICU)
(c) is a long way off - the economic costs of maintaining a heavy lockdown until then :-o
(d) may be possible, particularly with close borders and sufficiently few infections at the start, needs a lot of testing though
(e) only achievable by a lot of people getting infected
If (b) and (d) aren't successful then we're only reducing overall deaths thanks to (a), until vaccine or herd immunity happen. Those saved by (a) might still be a significant number (also among preventable non-COVID-19 deaths).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcnews
Yes, a lot to commend it.
Apologies to those with no outdoor space.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52007104
We could have locked down perhaps a couple of weeks earlier (as was suggested). which would probably have avoided at least two doublings of the number of people infected, and all that follows from that...
Why ask exactly the same thing using different words?
100% focus on the critical situation we are in now.
0% on hypotheticals which will cause a distraction which would cause focus to be lost.
(Albeit that work going on in background but no need to talk about it now).
And/or they're thick.
Testing has been disappointing too.
That's one thing I've been wondering about during this crisis. Whats happening with all the people having non-Covid medical emergencies?
Presumably the same number of people as usual are still having heart attacks, strokes, etc, etc? What is the NHS doing with these patients?
Are you brain-dead?
So not today...
I’m hoping for the lockdown to have eased by then...
Raab and the other two put them in their place and the journalists should hang their heads in shame today
And Newton-Dunn can't even get basic fact correct - he thought Whitty had recommended Boris go into hospital.
Increasing the range of shops that can open for example.
As well as showing himself to be a huge dick he wasted his questions - so much poor questioning and writing with people still treating this as a political soap opera
Yeah, that % positives seems to be a common trend. Italy's graph did the same thing, increasing % until day 12/13 of lockdown then nosediving .... which is the point we're at.
I'd say if Boris is still in hospital and showing no signs of getting better and/or getting worse by Friday he'll have to resign (temporarily at least) but i's worth leaving it a few more days to see if he can bounce back.
A lot of planned surgery is cancelled, and the risks of admitting patients with stroke etc are not insignificant. My workplace is the least socially distanced place that I have been in weeks.
In Leicester we are continuing all trauma surgery and urgent cancer stuff. The problem is more the urgent but not life or limb threatening stuff.
Certainly I would expect mortality from other conditions to rise as an indirect result.
Not everyone can say that.
Active cases: 93.187 (+1.941) including 3.898 (-79) in ICU
Deaths:: 16.523 (+636,)
Healed: 22.837 (+1.022)
Total cases: 132.547 (+3.599)
"How many Social Care staff have been tested?"
This was obvious last night, still more obvious by lunchtime today and blisteringly clear now.
In fact it was the key soundbite for entertainment purposes.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1247204439880056838?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52189803