Re Robert Jenrick: bringing medicines to a vulnerable person is explicitly permitted by the regulations.
I repeat what I said the other day.
There is far too much low-level abusive vigilantism based on ignorance of the laws and ignorance of peoples’ circumstances by moral busybodies enjoying their chance to boss others around. There is a nasty curtain twitching denunciation-side of the British people which is coming out, which is, frankly, nasty and which needs calling out.
It certainly seems "Sir" Kier has picked just about the most remain-centric shadow cabinet he possibly can.
Could it be that Starmer is planning to run a REJOIN manifesto in 2024?
You all know what I think about the Tories chances in 2024 but if Labour are mad enough to fight the election on REJOIN that's the one thing that could well see them lose...
You can never run perfect experiments in political science, because so many factors are different, but it will make an interesting contrast to Blair's timidity over the EU. Blair was criticised for not using his landslide majorities to do more - such as join the Euro - and perhaps a Starmer campaign on Rejoin will show why that caution was justified.
Starmer ruled out Rejoin during his campaign.
EEA/EFTA may be more his aim.
I doubt that the Tories or the Telegraph really want to lose a half a million mostly older obese male voters and readers, leaving Britain in hands of metropolitan millennial vegans.
This makes me queasy. Who's to say what an "essential" item is? What's essential to one person is non-essential to others.
The police are in no position to judge this.
If 'authorities' want to stop people buying certain items, then they should be cleared from the shelves. Trying to police supermarket trolleys is Orwellian.
I'm all for a strictly enforced lockdown, but this just seems silly. But then I suppose it is the job of the police to enforce laws, no matter how badly they are formulated.
Yes, but it's not their job to badly enforce those laws. Sometimes they are given unclear guidance from government on interpreting those laws, but they also seem to interpret them themselves (in fairness a lot of the time the government does not give guidance on its laws) and do it inconsistently. Which is something forgivable up to a point, but even when matters have been clarified they seem reluctant to change tack.
And no, complaining about such things is no awful police bashing. They do a lot of great work. But there is work they do that is not so great.
There's little or no cocaine coming in, apparently and the county line people are in lockdown. No traffic either, so they feel they have to do something.
I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree, And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made: Nine bean rows will I have there, a hive for the honey bee, And live alone in the bee-loud glade.
And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow, Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings; There midnight’s all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow, And evening full of the linnet’s wings.
I will arise and go now, for always night and day I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore; While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey, I hear it in the deep heart’s core.
This makes me queasy. Who's to say what an "essential" item is? What's essential to one person is non-essential to others.
The police are in no position to judge this.
If 'authorities' want to stop people buying certain items, then they should be cleared from the shelves. Trying to police supermarket trolleys is Orwellian.
Some of the police probably would like the items cleared from the shelves but government has not legislated for that, so I think the authorities are split on this to say the least. It is one area where there has definitely been confusion from the government, particularly in relation to guidance which understandably goes in stronger than the law in language, but which surprising numbers of people think is the law just because it uses the word 'must' and so on.
I'd be interested if any stores are voluntarily taking down 'non-essential' stock from their shelves to discourage non-essential trips.
Someone was issued a fixed penalty of £30 by the police in Edinburgh recently because their shopping bag contained wine and snacks which the police deemed non essential. I very much hope that she doesn't pay it. This sort of nonsense really needs to be discouraged.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
I think if the govt created a free month long Glastonbury type festival, where covid 19 was not treated by medics and entry/exit was impossible apart from the scheduled start and end, you would get 1m volunteers. Not sure the millionaire stars would be happy to play on those terms though.
No - I'm thinking of a situation in which a real effort would be made to infect the volunteers. For example, inhaling a virus-laden aerosol for several hours. Though I'd be happy for all kinds of entertainment to be laid on for them after they do that.
The question is whether there would really be any volunteers for that kind of thing, or whether people are just extolling the merits of herd immunity on the assumption they're not going to catch the virus.
Sure actually taking the virus, especially potentially large doses as you suggest is going to be far less appealing. Given how it was spreading pre lockdown, it would be hard not to imagine significant numbers of the festival would have caught it by the end so compulsion isnt needed. Everyone could be tested in detail at the end of the period.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
Yes - Germany and Austria aren't really modern Western industrial countries. There are just a few small remote villages, whose inhabitants spend most of the time tilling the land and rarely even see another. They're more likely to catch the virus from a horse than a human! You can't compare what happens there to the experience of proper countries.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
Re Robert Jenrick: bringing medicines to a vulnerable person is explicitly permitted by the regulations.
I repeat what I said the other day.
There is far too much low-level abusive vigilantism based on ignorance of the laws and ignorance of peoples’ circumstances by moral busybodies enjoying their chance to boss others around. There is a nasty curtain twitching denunciation-side of the British people which is coming out, which is, frankly, nasty and which needs calling out.
Righto, looks like I've the green light to drive whatever I like then, so long as I drop off a box of paracetamol at Granny's house!
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
It certainly seems "Sir" Kier has picked just about the most remain-centric shadow cabinet he possibly can.
Could it be that Starmer is planning to run a REJOIN manifesto in 2024?
You all know what I think about the Tories chances in 2024 but if Labour are mad enough to fight the election on REJOIN that's the one thing that could well see them lose...
I don't think he's that daft, but I do think the presence of Lammy, Reeves etc... in the Shadow Cabinet does very much suggest that BRINO is Labour's Brexit policy. If Starmer wins in 2024, the Tories end up in some disarray in opposition, and Farage is an irrelevance, I think it's at that point you'd probably get a rejoin manifesto for Starmer's second GE campaign.
I can't see it lasting beyond May. The economic damage and indirect mental health crisis will be too great.
I think relaxation in June is the earliest possible given we are not at peak yet and deaths will likely still be very high throughout May. Even if cases plummet in May the politics of relaxation then would look bad I suspect. Maybe July.
The current lockdown won't last until as late as July. Restrictions will probably still be in place by then, but nothing like as tight as those presently in force. As others have already pointed out, as soon as the costs of economic devastation (which inevitably include serious public health consequences) outweigh those of the deaths directly attributable to Covid, then the restrictions will begin to be loosened. When that time comes the Government will be right to do that.
And besides, if the authorities try to cage the population indefinitely with no hope of escape then people will get dispirited, public consent for the lockdown will collapse, and it will all start to unravel regardless. Unless the Government is willing to turn the Army out onto the streets and threaten the people with the use of force, it can't keep us confined under those circumstances. I'm confident they won't go to those extremes: they appear contrary to what is known of the Prime Minister's character, and besides they would result in the total destruction of his party at the next election.
Finally, if this thing continues into the Summer then you know full bloody well that we'll end up having an absolutely stinking hot June, the worst since records began. People stuck in their homes, but particularly those living in modern houses and flats (which are typically the size of a postage stamp and badly over-insulated) will find perpetual incarceration not just difficult but completely unbearable.
I reckon the Government has a grace period for the rest of April to do as it pleases, but after that it's going to have to produce a road map (with approximate timescales) for getting the country, if not back to normal, then something more closely resembling it. People can't and won't plod on ad infinitum without hope.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
I dunno. Look at the contrast between Italy and Greece.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
I think if the govt created a free month long Glastonbury type festival, where covid 19 was not treated by medics and entry/exit was impossible apart from the scheduled start and end, you would get 1m volunteers. Not sure the millionaire stars would be happy to play on those terms though.
No - I'm thinking of a situation in which a real effort would be made to infect the volunteers. For example, inhaling a virus-laden aerosol for several hours. Though I'd be happy for all kinds of entertainment to be laid on for them after they do that.
The question is whether there would really be any volunteers for that kind of thing, or whether people are just extolling the merits of herd immunity on the assumption they're not going to catch the virus.
Sure actually taking the virus, especially potentially large doses as you suggest is going to be far less appealing.
That was my assumption - that anything involving actually catching the virus, rather than just talking about other people catching the virus, would be less appealing.
But surely there must be some people here willing to volunteer, given that they are so keen on the concept?
There is far too much low-level abusive vigilantism based on ignorance of the laws and ignorance of peoples’ circumstances by moral busybodies enjoying their chance to boss others around. There is a nasty curtain twitching denunciation-side of the British people which is coming out, which is, frankly, nasty and which needs calling out.
Agree that this is an issue, but the minority (and they are a minority I think) who do that kind of curtain twitching denunciation were there before.
But the targets of their ire were specific elements of society; the disabled, those on some forms of benefits, immigrants, ethnic minorities.
Re Robert Jenrick: bringing medicines to a vulnerable person is explicitly permitted by the regulations.
I repeat what I said the other day.
There is far too much low-level abusive vigilantism based on ignorance of the laws and ignorance of peoples’ circumstances by moral busybodies enjoying their chance to boss others around. There is a nasty curtain twitching denunciation-side of the British people which is coming out, which is, frankly, nasty and which needs calling out.
Righto, looks like I've the green light to drive whatever I like then, so long as I drop off a box of paracetamol at Granny's house!
Yes cyclefree defending a minister who is not following his own advice.
It certainly seems "Sir" Kier has picked just about the most remain-centric shadow cabinet he possibly can.
Could it be that Starmer is planning to run a REJOIN manifesto in 2024?
You all know what I think about the Tories chances in 2024 but if Labour are mad enough to fight the election on REJOIN that's the one thing that could well see them lose...
I don't think he's that daft, but I do think the presence of Lammy, Reeves etc... in the Shadow Cabinet does very much suggest that BRINO is Labour's Brexit policy. If Starmer wins in 2024, the Tories end up in some disarray in opposition, and Farage is an irrelevance, I think it's at that point you'd probably get a rejoin manifesto for Starmer's second GE campaign.
Why risk losing re election to such a divisive policy when you can compromise on EEA and EFTA? Starmer has notably talked of the latter but not the former
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
Yes - Germany and Austria aren't really modern Western industrial countries. There are just a few small remote villages, whose inhabitants spend most of the time tilling the land and rarely even see another. They're more likely to catch the virus from a horse than a human! You can't compare what happens there to the experience of proper countries.
Germany is doing better than the rest of Europe. It is the richest and has a reputation for efficiency, industry and science. It is not a surprise it is doing better.
Comparing the UK with Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark would be fine. We would be average or better so far.
Expecting them to be the same as Germany is optimistic.
Comparing them to Norway, Finland, Latvia, Estonia etc is unrealistic, you could compare the lake district to those places perhaps.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries thst have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
The German response has been poor, though possibly better than the UKs
It certainly seems "Sir" Kier has picked just about the most remain-centric shadow cabinet he possibly can.
Could it be that Starmer is planning to run a REJOIN manifesto in 2024?
You all know what I think about the Tories chances in 2024 but if Labour are mad enough to fight the election on REJOIN that's the one thing that could well see them lose...
I don't think he's that daft, but I do think the presence of Lammy, Reeves etc... in the Shadow Cabinet does very much suggest that BRINO is Labour's Brexit policy. If Starmer wins in 2024, the Tories end up in some disarray in opposition, and Farage is an irrelevance, I think it's at that point you'd probably get a rejoin manifesto for Starmer's second GE campaign.
But the thing is by 2024 we'll have been out for 4 years (either from the current arrangements or the deal that UK and EU will strike next year) - why would people then want to reopen the whole thing again in 2024 by moving to a BRINO position?
This would involve fresh negotiations with the EU. maybe another referendum etc etc.
In the end Labour are going to have to accept Brexit and move the conversation on if they ever want to form another government in the same way they had to accept Thatchers reforms to get to 1997.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries thst have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
The German response has been poor, though possibly better than the UKs
The German response bar the South Korean has been the best in the world
Doctors can't run the country. For the same reason that haberdashers or butchers can't run it. We end up with a country that is distorted to cater to a single aim. They will need to be told gently to either solve this and let us get back to normal, or just do one and let us get back to normal at some point very soon.
You're entitled to your view but it's a small minority at the moment - most people approve of the lockdown and if anything want it to be stricter.
On deaths (cheery subject that it is), Ministers should also consider the unpleasant nature and frequent after-effects of the illness. I'm mildly higher risk as I'm 70. If there was merely a 5% risk of dying as I went about my business, i'd probably accept it. But a high probability of catching it and having a horrible illness, plus a 5% chance of dying, no thanks.
An interesting phenomenon that we're discussing in my job is that a significant proportion of the staff positively prefer working from home (no commuting, pleasant environment) and seem to be almost as effective in our (office) jobs. Most would like to be able to get out more in their free time, but we're drawing the conclusion that if and when things return to quasi-normality, we may switch from "you can work at home 1 day a week if you want to" (the current policy for most) to "we encourage you to work 1-2 days a week at home"). That facilitates hot-desking so there are savings to be had in office space as well as satisfaction for individuals.
That's fine for you Nick, and we all have to weigh up our own particular risks/rewards. But that is an argument for you taking additional precautions, not forcing the entire country to do so. If I wasn't overwhelmingly confident that necessity will force good sense to prevail, it would concern me that those who can muster little affection for personal freedom are enjoying this situation rather too much.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
This is pretty obvious but you see if stops the witless comments about #Torygenocide, herd immunity et al.
Its like a load bearing spar has snapped, simultaneously, in the minds of some.
Re Robert Jenrick: bringing medicines to a vulnerable person is explicitly permitted by the regulations.
I repeat what I said the other day.
There is far too much low-level abusive vigilantism based on ignorance of the laws and ignorance of peoples’ circumstances by moral busybodies enjoying their chance to boss others around. There is a nasty curtain twitching denunciation-side of the British people which is coming out, which is, frankly, nasty and which needs calling out.
Agree that this is an issue, but the minority (and they are a minority I think) who do that kind of curtain twitching denunciation were there before.
But the targets of their ire were specific elements of society; the disabled, those on some forms of benefits, immigrants, ethnic minorities.
Agreed. Nasty then. Nasty now.
Close communities can be great when people are looking out for each other. They can also be a nightmare when they result in people who don’t fit in, who don’t, for instance, have the “right” accent ( see what happened to my daughter the other day) being treated badly.
There is a fine line between the two and we are not as good as we might be, despite all our virtuous clapping, at determining where that line is.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries thst have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
The German response has been poor, though possibly better than the UKs
This isn't over. Not even the first wave is over. It's entirely plausible that countries that apparently do well in the first wave will be hit much harder by a second wave. We will only know what the best approach is when it ends, and that could be 18 months or more away.
Re Robert Jenrick: bringing medicines to a vulnerable person is explicitly permitted by the regulations.
I repeat what I said the other day.
There is far too much low-level abusive vigilantism based on ignorance of the laws and ignorance of peoples’ circumstances by moral busybodies enjoying their chance to boss others around. There is a nasty curtain twitching denunciation-side of the British people which is coming out, which is, frankly, nasty and which needs calling out.
Righto, looks like I've the green light to drive whatever I like then, so long as I drop off a box of paracetamol at Granny's house!
As ever, the advice is don’t take the piss. As you well know.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
One that used to contain pasta.
Or chocolate to sprinkle on your coffee.
(Sorry. I couldn’t resist. I will run away and hide now.)
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
I dunno. Look at the contrast between Italy and Greece.
Italy has lots more big cities, and a population density 2.5x that of Greece. Greece's 3rd biggest city wouldnt be in the top 100 in the UK, about the size of Canterbury.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
...and if such a thing exists, why haven't the supermarkets closed them?
Well, quite. I'm a hardline lockdowner but I want consistent rules that are sensibly enforced., not rules where the police, the sdupermarket and you all have to guess at what is meant. I don't think that a random check on purchases and an arbitrary decisikon on what's essential is a sensible way to address it.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Japan was highlighted previously as being on the right track and keeping a lid on it but on Tuesday they've had to escalate matters.
See also Singapore.
Pointing out 'Germany' is the absolute absence of an argument - they're on a broadly similar path to everyone else.
Isn’t that the computer equivalent of calling for Sumerian speakers?
When I graduated in comp sci in mid 80s, COBOL was still being taught on the sister degree (Data Processing) and there were still jobs around asking for it. I'm guessing that continued into the 90s.
Father of a friend of mine is a COBOL programmer, still working into his 70s at over a grand a day.
Wish I'd gone down that route now, but we were all told it was a dead language 25 years ago!
Robert Glass wrote a book called "Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering" around the turn of the millenium. In Fact 30 he pointed out that COBOL is a hardy perennial of a language and would be sticking around for years to come and that if you looked at job postings the number requesting COBOL had been increasing not decreasing.
Like Latin?
Ha, I used to be a COBOL programmer. Felt like it was going nowhere - all the jobs getting offshored - and took a masters in town planning. Now moved on from that too. Maybe time to go back to COBOL if suddenly we're short of programmers! Though it's not exactly difficult.
I'm currently trying to get back into software development by teaching myself Kotlin to write Android apps. I have a feeling that COBOL is probably a bit easier!
Yeah, give me 'PIC S9(6) COMP SYNC RIGHT' over 'int' any day!
(Ex ICL-1900 COBOL programmer)
EDIT: My COBOL may be 40 years rusty tbf.
Thank you for posting that. I now don't feel remotely bad for posting pictures of moths.....
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
One that used to contain pasta.
Or chocolate to sprinkle in your coffee.
(Sorry. I couldn’t resist. . I will run away and hide now.)
That’s quite alright. With my local coffee shop no longer available, a few pieces along with their drip coffee (still available by post) is the new practice.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries thst have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
The German response has been poor, though possibly better than the UKs
The German response bar the South Korean has been the best in the world
Germany had only patchy contact tracing when there was still a chance to contain the virus. It failed to introduce restrictions or checks on travellers from affected areas when it was obvious it was needed. There was a lack of coordinated national response. Merkel didn't even mention coronavirus in public until March 11th.
It's a bit early to judge, but I expect many countries will prove to have done better than Germany.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
I think if the govt created a free month long Glastonbury type festival, where covid 19 was not treated by medics and entry/exit was impossible apart from the scheduled start and end, you would get 1m volunteers. Not sure the millionaire stars would be happy to play on those terms though.
No - I'm thinking of a situation in which a real effort would be made to infect the volunteers. For example, inhaling a virus-laden aerosol for several hours. Though I'd be happy for all kinds of entertainment to be laid on for them after they do that.
The question is whether there would really be any volunteers for that kind of thing, or whether people are just extolling the merits of herd immunity on the assumption they're not going to catch the virus.
Sure actually taking the virus, especially potentially large doses as you suggest is going to be far less appealing.
That was my assumption - that anything involving actually catching the virus, rather than just talking about other people catching the virus, would be less appealing.
But surely there must be some people here willing to volunteer, given that they are so keen on the concept?
For a pandemic to end the infection rate must fall below 1 (that is on average less than one new infection resulting from an infection). That rate is primarily governed by three things: 1. Ease of transmission (looks high for Covid19). 2. Behaviour of population (distancing, hand washing, protective gear, lock down etc) 3. Potential targets in the population which are reduced by the number of people already infected.
Point 3 is the "herd immunity" principle. Vaccines reduce the number of targets by introducing immunity in a "painless" way. The level at which herd immunity is reached depends on points 1 and 2.
Managing point 2 is very tricky for obvious reasons.
A vaccine may take a long time to be developed and deployed. The most optimistic area I think is improvements in treatment. If some combination of existing drugs can reduce need for ICU and death rate then it will enable earlier relaxing of lock-down when the cost benefit estimates are made.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
I dunno. Look at the contrast between Italy and Greece.
Italy has lots more big cities, and a population density 2.5x that of Greece. Greece's 3rd biggest city wouldnt be in the top 100 in the UK, about the size of Canterbury.
I was in a virtual pub last night with some colleagues marooned in Greece. Leicestershire has as many fatalities as the whole of Greece, on 8% of the population. We have half the national average of England.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
...and if such a thing exists, why haven't the supermarkets closed them?
Well, quite. I'm a hardline lockdowner but I want consistent rules that are sensibly enforced., not rules where the police, the sdupermarket and you all have to guess at what is meant. I don't think that a random check on purchases and an arbitrary decisikon on what's essential is a sensible way to address it.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
Re non-essential items, where many would question (or misunderstand) the rules are, if you go to Tesco to buy food (allowed) then what difference does it make if you also pick up an Easter egg or birthday card (non-essential) while you are there? From what I observe, the supermarkets think it is OK, as do many shoppers judging by their trolleys, but not (some) police forces.
So what are the rules? And here we go back to @Cyclefree's complaints and also to arguments about whether journalists seeking clarity are guilty of asking inane questions of ministers.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries thst have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
The German response has been poor, though possibly better than the UKs
This isn't over. Not even the first wave is over. It's entirely plausible that countries that apparently do well in the first wave will be hit much harder by a second wave. We will only know what the best approach is when it ends, and that could be 18 months or more away.
Re Robert Jenrick: bringing medicines to a vulnerable person is explicitly permitted by the regulations.
I repeat what I said the other day.
There is far too much low-level abusive vigilantism based on ignorance of the laws and ignorance of peoples’ circumstances by moral busybodies enjoying their chance to boss others around. There is a nasty curtain twitching denunciation-side of the British people which is coming out, which is, frankly, nasty and which needs calling out.
Righto, looks like I've the green light to drive whatever I like then, so long as I drop off a box of paracetamol at Granny's house!
Yes cyclefree defending a minister who is not following his own advice.
Jenrick's justification rests on having driven some distance to drop off a parcel at the doorstep of elderly relatives (i.e. he didn't violate their self-isolation by going indoors,) and then having gone home again. Since these were essential goods and he was on a mercy dash rather than on a jolly, then presumably the journey falls within the scope of the regulations?
I do wonder if the fuss over this incident is the product of the length of the drive: if the Jenricks senior lived a mile down the road then would anyone have batted an eyelid? It's a long trip and is thus made to look unnecessary and like a nice day trip out, but is travelling back and forth 40 miles in a sealed box in order to drop off a parcel qualitatively different from travelling back and forth 1 mile to the same end? I'm not at all sure that it is.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
You dont seem to be thinking practically. Herd immunity works if most of the population have it, not if most of those who believe in a particular policy have it. Even 1m youngsters volunteering to deliberately take it would achieve nothing.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
A measured dose, delivered nasally.
I'm happy for it to be measured, provided there's plenty of it. It wouldn't be right to waste the time of all these brave volunteers.
Anyone looked into the Belgian numbers, they look disastrous, 496 dead yesterday which is equivalent to about 3000 deaths in a single day in the UK. What has gone wrong there?!
Miss Cyclefree, in Rome, delators were denouncers who would inform on unwise dinner party comments and the like to Sejanus/Tiberius, with said denounced people usually deciding of their own free will to suddenly kill themselves.
Edited extra bit: for clarity, they often did kill themselves, and leave substantial sums to the emperor in their will. This ensured their children would not be disinherited of the remainder of the estate.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkwardnquestions about use of personal data.
Japan was highlighted previously as being on the right track and keeping a lid on it but on Tuesday they've had to escalate matters.
See also Singapore.
Given a choice between awkward use of personal data, and a great depression, I think I know which way I’d lean - though it would be possible to replicate the S Korean system with less invasive protocols. (South Korean crime drama is a hoot, btw.)
None of those countries have the solution, but they have shown how to buy time without completely crashing the economy.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
So the crisis is over is it? You must be the fat lady singing.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
If there were a virus infection programme, I'd certainly give it serious consideration. I think there is something in 'viral dose' so I would expect to be given a minimal dose in controlled conditions.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
One that used to contain pasta.
The Old Bill have had an awful time, no hoodies smoking spliffs to nick and not even any Climate Change protesters to harass. Now they are doing the next best thing and popping up down the spices aisle.
'Taste it Gov, it's Star Anise' 'Right Wayne call the nick before they take all the fennel and cumin.'
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
I think if the govt created a free month long Glastonbury type festival, where covid 19 was not treated by medics and entry/exit was impossible apart from the scheduled start and end, you would get 1m volunteers. Not sure the millionaire stars would be happy to play on those terms though.
No - I'm thinking of a situation in which a real effort would be made to infect the volunteers. For example, inhaling a virus-laden aerosol for several hours. Though I'd be happy for all kinds of entertainment to be laid on for them after they do that.
The question is whether there would really be any volunteers for that kind of thing, or whether people are just extolling the merits of herd immunity on the assumption they're not going to catch the virus.
Sure actually taking the virus, especially potentially large doses as you suggest is going to be far less appealing.
That was my assumption - that anything involving actually catching the virus, rather than just talking about other people catching the virus, would be less appealing.
But surely there must be some people here willing to volunteer, given that they are so keen on the concept?
For a pandemic to end the infection rate must fall below 1 (that is on average less than one new infection resulting from an infection). That rate is primarily governed by three things: 1. Ease of transmission (looks high for Covid19). 2. Behaviour of population (distancing, hand washing, protective gear, lock down etc) 3. Potential targets in the population which are reduced by the number of people already infected.
Point 3 is the "herd immunity" principle. Vaccines reduce the number of targets by introducing immunity in a "painless" way. The level at which herd immunity is reached depends on points 1 and 2.
Managing point 2 is very tricky for obvious reasons.
A vaccine may take a long time to be developed and deployed. The most optimistic area I think is improvements in treatment. If some combination of existing drugs can reduce need for ICU and death rate then it will enable earlier relaxing of lock-down when the cost benefit estimates are made.
I'm reasonably optimistic for vaccines because, unlike when we were trying to cure the common cold, we now have lots more science to throw at the problem.
But for your points 1 and 2, ease of transmission and behaviour, we are still not clear on how exactly this virus is passed on. It may be that we can ease parts of the lockdown safely now if only we knew which parts.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
...and if such a thing exists, why haven't the supermarkets closed them?
Well, quite. I'm a hardline lockdowner but I want consistent rules that are sensibly enforced., not rules where the police, the sdupermarket and you all have to guess at what is meant. I don't think that a random check on purchases and an arbitrary decisikon on what's essential is a sensible way to address it.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
Re non-essential items, where many would question (or misunderstand) the rules are, if you go to Tesco to buy food (allowed) then what difference does it make if you also pick up an Easter egg or birthday card (non-essential) while you are there? From what I observe, the supermarkets think it is OK, as do many shoppers judging by their trolleys, but not (some) police forces.
So what are the rules? And here we go back to @Cyclefree's complaints and also to arguments about whether journalists seeking clarity are guilty of asking inane questions of ministers.
As long as you have essential items alongside any other items then the police should be told to GTF. Last thing we need is some dumb copper deciding what we can and cannot eat or drink. If they were anywhere near as efficient at solving crimes the country would be much improved.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
I dunno. Look at the contrast between Italy and Greece.
Italy has lots more big cities, and a population density 2.5x that of Greece. Greece's 3rd biggest city wouldnt be in the top 100 in the UK, about the size of Canterbury.
I was in a virtual pub last night with some colleagues marooned in Greece. Leicestershire has as many fatalities as the whole of Greece, on 8% of the population. We have half the national average of England.
Leicestershires population density is 6x that of Greece, and many times of that non Athens Greece. Greek population is spread over a couple of hundred fairly remote islands and small towns on the mainland. Urban areas are where this is hitting worldwide.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Japan was highlighted previously as being on the right track and keeping a lid on it but on Tuesday they've had to escalate matters.
See also Singapore.
Pointing out 'Germany' is the absolute absence of an argument - they're on a broadly similar path to everyone else.
Re Japan - is it not a slightly troubling fact that once the Olympics were officially delayed the number of cases reported started to climb
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
You dont seem to be thinking practically. Herd immunity works if most of the population have it, not if most of those who believe in a particular policy have it. Even 1m youngsters volunteering to deliberately take it would achieve nothing.
Fair enough - to achieve herd immunity would take a really large number of volunteers, and we don't have a single one yet.
But think about it in slightly wider terms. Every person in the population who is immune can reduce the spread of the virus. It's quite feasible that 1m volunteers could save 1m lives.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
One that used to contain pasta.
The Old Bill have had an awful time, no hoodies smoking spliffs to nick and not even any Climate Change protesters to harass. Now they are doing the next best thing and popping up down the spices aisle.
'Taste it Gov, it's Star Anise' 'Right Wayne call the nick before they take all the fennel and cumin.'
I find it touching that you think the police arrest hoodies smoking weed. If only.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries thst have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
The German response has been poor, though possibly better than the UKs
This isn't over. Not even the first wave is over. It's entirely plausible that countries that apparently do well in the first wave will be hit much harder by a second wave. We will only know what the best approach is when it ends, and that could be 18 months or more away.
Yes, the possibly better is based on certainly doing a lot more testing, and starting lock down a week or 2 earlier relative to the number of deaths.
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Does anybody here consider their use of personal data awkward? Speaking as a privacy hawk I definitely don't. They're tracing infection of a deadly disease, the main alternative is to have everyone shut up in their homes. I mean, if we can come up with technical clevers that produce the same results with more anonymity then great, and we need to make sure this ends when the crisis does but otherwise, give the contract tracers the data.
Seems the Robert Jenrick CV story is even more of a non-story (provided what he has said is true). Apparently, his family, wife and 3 kids, lives there at least Friday to Sunday in normal times and have been based there since before the restrictions began. And since his last work engagement he had to do in London (the government press conference), he has also been based there and worked from home.
It does raise a non-CV question, what about the home in his constituency, does he really ever use it? And if not, does he ever bill the taxpayer for it.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
A measured dose, delivered nasally.
I'm happy for it to be measured, provided there's plenty of it. It wouldn't be right to waste the time of all these brave volunteers.
It is a serious, though ethically questionable, suggestion. Being able to deploy a workable vaccine globally, six months earlier than otherwise, would save millions of lives.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
You dont seem to be thinking practically. Herd immunity works if most of the population have it, not if most of those who believe in a particular policy have it. Even 1m youngsters volunteering to deliberately take it would achieve nothing.
Fair enough - to achieve herd immunity would take a really large number of volunteers, and we don't have a single one yet.
But think about it in slightly wider terms. Every person in the population who is immune can reduce the spread of the virus. It's quite feasible that 1m volunteers could save 1m lives.
But I can tell you're not very keen.
If I thought I was directly saving one life by being infected Id probably accept. But I think the chance of 1m volunteers saving 1m lives is zero. I am not sure how your plan saves any lives at all, its just a random debating point because you dont like their view.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
...and if such a thing exists, why haven't the supermarkets closed them?
Well, quite. I'm a hardline lockdowner but I want consistent rules that are sensibly enforced., not rules where the police, the sdupermarket and you all have to guess at what is meant. I don't think that a random check on purchases and an arbitrary decisikon on what's essential is a sensible way to address it.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
Re non-essential items, where many would question (or misunderstand) the rules are, if you go to Tesco to buy food (allowed) then what difference does it make if you also pick up an Easter egg or birthday card (non-essential) while you are there? From what I observe, the supermarkets think it is OK, as do many shoppers judging by their trolleys, but not (some) police forces.
So what are the rules? And here we go back to @Cyclefree's complaints and also to arguments about whether journalists seeking clarity are guilty of asking inane questions of ministers.
As long as you have essential items alongside any other items then the police should be told to GTF. Last thing we need is some dumb copper deciding what we can and cannot eat or drink. If they were anywhere near as efficient at solving crimes the country would be much improved.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
Scandinavia, East & Central Europe have much lower population density and are less inter connected than UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands. The virus hasnt spread as much to rural areas in those countries either. Id imagine the former group also has better levels of fitness and lower levels of obesity.
It seems much more likely to me the variations are primarily down to factors other than policy.
I dunno. Look at the contrast between Italy and Greece.
Italy has lots more big cities, and a population density 2.5x that of Greece. Greece's 3rd biggest city wouldnt be in the top 100 in the UK, about the size of Canterbury.
I was in a virtual pub last night with some colleagues marooned in Greece. Leicestershire has as many fatalities as the whole of Greece, on 8% of the population. We have half the national average of England.
Leicestershires population density is 6x that of Greece, and many times of that non Athens Greece. Greek population is spread over a couple of hundred fairly remote islands and small towns on the mainland. Urban areas are where this is hitting worldwide.
The population of Athens is several times the population of Leicestershire.
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Does anybody here consider their use of personal data awkward? Speaking as a privacy hawk I definitely don't. They're tracing infection of a deadly disease, the main alternative is to have everyone shut up in their homes. I mean, if we can come up with technical clevers that produce the same results with more anonymity then great, and we need to make sure this ends when the crisis does but otherwise, give the contract tracers the data.
Agreed. Though the point about S Korea is that the systems were pretty well there already, pre pandemic. IOW it would have to be an exception to our legal privacy regime; that didn’t really arise for them.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
...and if such a thing exists, why haven't the supermarkets closed them?
Well, quite. I'm a hardline lockdowner but I want consistent rules that are sensibly enforced., not rules where the police, the sdupermarket and you all have to guess at what is meant. I don't think that a random check on purchases and an arbitrary decisikon on what's essential is a sensible way to address it.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
Re non-essential items, where many would question (or misunderstand) the rules are, if you go to Tesco to buy food (allowed) then what difference does it make if you also pick up an Easter egg or birthday card (non-essential) while you are there? From what I observe, the supermarkets think it is OK, as do many shoppers judging by their trolleys, but not (some) police forces.
So what are the rules? And here we go back to @Cyclefree's complaints and also to arguments about whether journalists seeking clarity are guilty of asking inane questions of ministers.
What the government means by 'essential' can be discerned quite sensibly by noting that off licences are regarded as essential, and this is the case even though alcohol and fags can be obtained in lots of other places. (Part 3 of Schedule 2). This suggests that most ordinary everyday things are essential, even though we can live without them - like birthday cards, newspapers, books and so on. The police should not remotely be interfering with these parts of life. The fact they seem willing to is a good reason for keeping the police under control and within the law.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
If there were a virus infection programme, I'd certainly give it serious consideration. I think there is something in 'viral dose' so I would expect to be given a minimal dose in controlled conditions.
That would be OK, if you insisted.
But you still feel a bit unsure whether you'd be willing to do it. Why? If you're advocating herd immunity, you're advocating 60% of the population getting it, including many people who would die. Why so hesitant when it comes to you getting it yourself?
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Japan was highlighted previously as being on the right track and keeping a lid on it but on Tuesday they've had to escalate matters.
See also Singapore.
Pointing out 'Germany' is the absolute absence of an argument - they're on a broadly similar path to everyone else.
In 24 months time perhaps we can judge which country performed the best. At the moment it is all conjecture.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
South Korea's approach is far from perfect, and really does raise awkward questions about use of personal data.
Japan was highlighted previously as being on the right track and keeping a lid on it but on Tuesday they've had to escalate matters.
See also Singapore.
Pointing out 'Germany' is the absolute absence of an argument - they're on a broadly similar path to everyone else.
Re Japan - is it not a slightly troubling fact that once the Olympics were officially delayed the number of cases reported started to climb
I do think the Tokyo numbers were shady - until the cancellation Tokyo was mysteriously untouched by this disease that was all over Osaka and Nagoya - but the rest don't seem to have been way off or we'd be seeing it in the hospitals.
But the complacency that set in late at all levels in late March was very visible, especially after the government announced they'd reopen schools. It was horribly timed, because just as people were relaxing what had been a fairly effective and not very disruptive response, loads of people were showing up from Europe and the US, and subject to a much gentler quarantine regime than the one they'd had when the infected people were coming from China.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
...and if such a thing exists, why haven't the supermarkets closed them?
Well, quite. I'm a hardline lockdowner but I want consistent rules that are sensibly enforced., not rules where the police, the sdupermarket and you all have to guess at what is meant. I don't think that a random check on purchases and an arbitrary decisikon on what's essential is a sensible way to address it.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
Re non-essential items, where many would question (or misunderstand) the rules are, if you go to Tesco to buy food (allowed) then what difference does it make if you also pick up an Easter egg or birthday card (non-essential) while you are there? From what I observe, the supermarkets think it is OK, as do many shoppers judging by their trolleys, but not (some) police forces.
So what are the rules? And here we go back to @Cyclefree's complaints and also to arguments about whether journalists seeking clarity are guilty of asking inane questions of ministers.
As long as you have essential items alongside any other items then the police should be told to GTF. Last thing we need is some dumb copper deciding what we can and cannot eat or drink. If they were anywhere near as efficient at solving crimes the country would be much improved.
All true but telling the police to GTF is probably itself an offence and in any case we do have (in this thread) examples of some police forces telling people they cannot buy certain items, even if they do seem to be gold-plating the government's rules.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
One that used to contain pasta.
The Old Bill have had an awful time, no hoodies smoking spliffs to nick and not even any Climate Change protesters to harass. Now they are doing the next best thing and popping up down the spices aisle.
'Taste it Gov, it's Star Anise' 'Right Wayne call the nick before they take all the fennel and cumin.'
I find it touching that you think the police arrest hoodies smoking weed. If only.
Well if they nicked everyone creating a stink in public we really would have another 20000 'Bobbys'
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
You dont seem to be thinking practically. Herd immunity works if most of the population have it, not if most of those who believe in a particular policy have it. Even 1m youngsters volunteering to deliberately take it would achieve nothing.
Fair enough - to achieve herd immunity would take a really large number of volunteers, and we don't have a single one yet.
But think about it in slightly wider terms. Every person in the population who is immune can reduce the spread of the virus. It's quite feasible that 1m volunteers could save 1m lives.
But I can tell you're not very keen.
If I thought I was directly saving one life by being infected Id probably accept. But I think the chance of 1m volunteers saving 1m lives is zero.
Mr. Urquhart, in a competitive field, the Jenrick story might be the single most stupid slice of journalism in the pandemic coverage to date.
No, lots of competition for that.
Blaming Witty for getting the virus is right up there. I mean the bloke leading the government response has been forced to interact with lots of people as part of his job and was unfortunate to catch something that you are only really safe from if you walk around in a spacesuit 24/7.
Or why did Boris / Prince Charles get a test before other people.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
...and if such a thing exists, why haven't the supermarkets closed them?
Well, quite. I'm a hardline lockdowner but I want consistent rules that are sensibly enforced., not rules where the police, the sdupermarket and you all have to guess at what is meant. I don't think that a random check on purchases and an arbitrary decisikon on what's essential is a sensible way to address it.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
Re non-essential items, where many would question (or misunderstand) the rules are, if you go to Tesco to buy food (allowed) then what difference does it make if you also pick up an Easter egg or birthday card (non-essential) while you are there? From what I observe, the supermarkets think it is OK, as do many shoppers judging by their trolleys, but not (some) police forces.
So what are the rules? And here we go back to @Cyclefree's complaints and also to arguments about whether journalists seeking clarity are guilty of asking inane questions of ministers.
There are regulations about what types of shops can stay open, but categorically *NOT* about what goods are or are not essential. The Government has not said that we all have to live off gruel and not buy wine, birthday cards, saucepans, new pairs of socks or anything else. Personally I'm not coming home with bagloads of non-food and luxury purchases (I don't have a car so wouldn't be able to lug all that extra weight home anyway,) but if some interfering busybody says I can't have a bottle of plonk and a box of chocolates then they can fuck right off.
Beyond that, the biggest problem with shopping now isn't lack of availability of goods but the length of the queues to get in. They are there for a good reason and make things civilized and relatively stress-free once you actually get inside, but you really don't want to be stuck at the back of an immense one. Therefore, one has to try to guess which shops will or won't have mega-queues outside them at any given time.
I made the mistake of turning up at the big Tesco down the road last Saturday morning and had to wait a full half-hour to gain admittance (and the queue behind me was getting ever-longer as well, so the back markers would've been kicking their heels for longer than that.) Mercifully the weather was tolerable, but all the same I shan't be making that mistake again.
It's curious they are still trying to enforce such a thing when it's been made clear already that is beyond what is required by the law. Do they not read the news?
What is a non essential aisle.?
...and if such a thing exists, why haven't the supermarkets closed them?
Well, quite. I'm a hardline lockdowner but I want consistent rules that are sensibly enforced., not rules where the police, the sdupermarket and you all have to guess at what is meant. I don't think that a random check on purchases and an arbitrary decisikon on what's essential is a sensible way to address it.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
Re non-essential items, where many would question (or misunderstand) the rules are, if you go to Tesco to buy food (allowed) then what difference does it make if you also pick up an Easter egg or birthday card (non-essential) while you are there? From what I observe, the supermarkets think it is OK, as do many shoppers judging by their trolleys, but not (some) police forces.
So what are the rules? And here we go back to @Cyclefree's complaints and also to arguments about whether journalists seeking clarity are guilty of asking inane questions of ministers.
I have two complaints. One is about members of the public who take the piss, ignore the guidance and put others at risk.
My other is that the police should understand the rules they are seeking to enforce. I know, I know, a counsel of perfection.
But it’s not as if there hasn’t been plenty of guidance around, some of it from lawyers who regularly advise the police. Reading a page and a half of rules is not exactly onerous stuff.
It seems to me that there are some in the police force who are perhaps a bit too desperate to be seen as the good guys playing their part and are overreaching. Others are using the opportunity to boss others around and could not care less about the law or think that their uniform and fear will allow them to get away with it. Others are confused - which is the fault of their leaders, though individual officers are not excused the obligation to know what the law is, as “obeying orders” or, indeed, “ignorance of the law” are no excuse. And yet others are plain stupid or utterly lacking in judgment or common-sense.
And there are plenty of others who are enforcing the rules properly and intelligently. They get forgotten but should not be.
The virus has not and should not stop us criticising authorities when they get it wrong. We may not be able to go out but we can still think. The fact that authorities are doing this “for our own good” is not, never has been and never should be a justification for unlawfulness.
I note that when it comes to crimes such as burglary, anti-social behaviour and fraud, the police are generally not interested and say that they do not have the resources to deal with them. And yet now, somehow, they do have the resources to patrol parks and supermarkets and front gardens, and in some numbers too. I never again want to hear them bleating about a lack of resources.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
If there were a virus infection programme, I'd certainly give it serious consideration. I think there is something in 'viral dose' so I would expect to be given a minimal dose in controlled conditions.
That would be OK, if you insisted.
But you still feel a bit unsure whether you'd be willing to do it. Why? If you're advocating herd immunity, you're advocating 60% of the population getting it, including many people who would die. Why so hesitant when it comes to you getting it yourself?
Because I would want to know the specifics. If I 'caught' Coronavirus, I would be able to eat the foods, take the supplements, and put in place the treatment regimen that I felt most beneficial. I'd want to do that in this case too.
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
You dont seem to be thinking practically. Herd immunity works if most of the population have it, not if most of those who believe in a particular policy have it. Even 1m youngsters volunteering to deliberately take it would achieve nothing.
Fair enough - to achieve herd immunity would take a really large number of volunteers, and we don't have a single one yet.
But think about it in slightly wider terms. Every person in the population who is immune can reduce the spread of the virus. It's quite feasible that 1m volunteers could save 1m lives.
But I can tell you're not very keen.
If I thought I was directly saving one life by being infected Id probably accept. But I think the chance of 1m volunteers saving 1m lives is zero. I am not sure how your plan saves any lives at all, its just a random debating point because you dont like their view.
Herd immunity can only be effectively achieved using targeted vaccination as well. The idea we have probably all had it or will probably get it is far from sure.
I am very worried the plod might come crashing through the door. Hands up, I bought a fancy new coffee machine and a pair of flip flops since the outbreak began and also delivered some treats like ice cream to my elderly parents that they couldn't get via delivery service (obviously without going in).
The doctors/epidemiologists advising the government have effectively ruled 1) out. The restrictions will continue until cases have been reduced to a very low level. The restrictions will then be slightly loosened until cases rise again when the restrictions will be reimposed. There will never be enough cases for herd immunity to be reached. The only other scenario the doctors will accept for restrictions to be lifted is if a vaccine is available that enables herd immunity to be reached. No doctor will admit this.
See Question Time last night when the epidemiologist was asked what was required for the lockdown to be lifted, and he did not answer the question. The doctors are running the country, and the elected politicians are taking orders from them. If this continues and no vaccine is found the lockdown could last more than 50 years.
Exactly.
If we rule out herd immunity as a strategy, which we seem to have,
Maybe steps like mass antibody testing and compulsory mask wearing (once enough are available) can bring us closer to something that resembles normality, but I've become quite pessimistic of late.
I think things might have been better if we'd never heard the phrase 'herd immunity.'
I agree re. your last paragraph. Mass antibody testing, carrying some sort of 'I've had the virus' ID and, yes, compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and inside public buildings.
It did however confirm how our betters think of us, they do not normally admit to it. Our Lords and Masters think of us as disposable worker ants.
Hard as it is to accept, herd immunity is still the only show in town.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to be infected with the virus, and to go into isolation until you were no longer infectious, and also to waive the right to medical treatment for the infection?
It's a genuine question. If there were really large numbers of people who felt that way, they could make a genuine contribution to solving the problem.
As volunteers for a large scale vaccine trial, perhaps ?
No, I'm not talking about volunteers for a vaccine trial. I'm talking about volunteers actually to be infected by the virus so as to contribute to herd immunity. While ensuring that they won't infect any non-volunteers or deprive non-volunteers of medical resources.
Yes, so am I, but perhaps more constructively ? If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
Oh - OK, provided you're going to have a really good go at infecting them.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
A measured dose, delivered nasally.
I'm happy for it to be measured, provided there's plenty of it. It wouldn't be right to waste the time of all these brave volunteers.
It is a serious, though ethically questionable, suggestion. Being able to deploy a workable vaccine globally, six months earlier than otherwise, would save millions of lives.
Well, if there were really large numbers of people willing to be infected to contribute to herd immunity, and if the practicalities could be handled, that would also be a serious, though ethically questionable, suggestion.No doubt in principle large numbers of lives could be saved by low-risk volunteers agreeing to be infected.
But of course there wouldn't be large numbers of volunteers, That's why it's not a sensible suggestion.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
Kimchi and sauerkraut obviously have greater efficacy than hot broth.
The other point worth making is that the police stopping people and asking to look in their shopping bags etc or other similar stuff are breaking the social distancing advice. They are putting people at risk, especially since they are out and about and therefore probably at higher risk, both of catching this virus themselves and passing it on to others.
So this sort of behaviour is both unlawful and stupid, given the purpose of the regulations.
So successfully, the policy has also been implemented across Europe.
A comparison between the UK death rates and Germany show that's not the case. However best to ascribe the UKs failure to political incompetence rather than active malice.
Why is Germany the baseline rather than Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark etc? All that shows is at least one country is doing better than us.
I would say the UK response to the coronavirus has been average to poor in European terms, which collectively has done better than the US but worse than East Asia.
I would put the UK in a group of countries including France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands. Another group of countries including Germany, most of Scandinavia, some of East and Central Europe and Ireland have done better.
The only countries that have really responded well are Germany and South Korea, hence their low death rates per capita. Indeed despite having the biggest population in western Europe, Germany only has the fifth highest number of deaths in western Europe.
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
Kimchi and sauerkraut obviously have greater efficacy than hot broth.
Kimchi....now want kimchi.....all I am going to think about is Kimchi for the rest of the day now.
Comments
I repeat what I said the other day.
There is far too much low-level abusive vigilantism based on ignorance of the laws and ignorance of peoples’ circumstances by moral busybodies enjoying their chance to boss others around. There is a nasty curtain twitching denunciation-side of the British people which is coming out, which is, frankly, nasty and which needs calling out.
EEA/EFTA may be more his aim.
I doubt that the Tories or the Telegraph really want to lose a half a million mostly older obese male voters and readers, leaving Britain in hands of metropolitan millennial vegans.
I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:
Nine bean rows will I have there, a hive for the honey bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.
And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight’s all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet’s wings.
I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart’s core.
William Yeats
Sweden is still pursuing herd immunity and its death rate is rising rapidly
And besides, if the authorities try to cage the population indefinitely with no hope of escape then people will get dispirited, public consent for the lockdown will collapse, and it will all start to unravel regardless. Unless the Government is willing to turn the Army out onto the streets and threaten the people with the use of force, it can't keep us confined under those circumstances. I'm confident they won't go to those extremes: they appear contrary to what is known of the Prime Minister's character, and besides they would result in the total destruction of his party at the next election.
Finally, if this thing continues into the Summer then you know full bloody well that we'll end up having an absolutely stinking hot June, the worst since records began. People stuck in their homes, but particularly those living in modern houses and flats (which are typically the size of a postage stamp and badly over-insulated) will find perpetual incarceration not just difficult but completely unbearable.
I reckon the Government has a grace period for the rest of April to do as it pleases, but after that it's going to have to produce a road map (with approximate timescales) for getting the country, if not back to normal, then something more closely resembling it. People can't and won't plod on ad infinitum without hope.
https://twitter.com/grandad1975/status/1248247686563631104?s=21
https://twitter.com/syptweet/status/1248294700827709440?s=21
But surely there must be some people here willing to volunteer, given that they are so keen on the concept?
But the targets of their ire were specific elements of society; the disabled, those on some forms of benefits, immigrants, ethnic minorities.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/10/robert-jenrick-urged-explain-visit-parents-during-lockdown
Comparing the UK with Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Denmark would be fine. We would be average or better so far.
Expecting them to be the same as Germany is optimistic.
Comparing them to Norway, Finland, Latvia, Estonia etc is unrealistic, you could compare the lake district to those places perhaps.
This would involve fresh negotiations with the EU. maybe another referendum etc etc.
In the end Labour are going to have to accept Brexit and move the conversation on if they ever want to form another government in the same way they had to accept Thatchers reforms to get to 1997.
Its like a load bearing spar has snapped, simultaneously, in the minds of some.
Close communities can be great when people are looking out for each other. They can also be a nightmare when they result in people who don’t fit in, who don’t, for instance, have the “right” accent ( see what happened to my daughter the other day) being treated badly.
There is a fine line between the two and we are not as good as we might be, despite all our virtuous clapping, at determining where that line is.
(Sorry. I couldn’t resist.
If they were first vaccinated, and then deliberately infected, you would save many months in testing a vaccine’s efficacy.
The issue that underlies this is that most supermarkets are only allowing custoimers in gradually, spaced out, so there are loads of people outside in the queue (80 at my local Sainsbury yesterday, I'm told). Obviously it's irritating if you then spend 15 minutes in an aisle pondering which bottle of wine you'd most like for your dinner, so possibly what's needed is for assistants to say politely "please make your choices swiftly, there are others waiting". But they'll get abused if they do.
aka The Aisle of Shite......
Japan was highlighted previously as being on the right track and keeping a lid on it but on Tuesday they've had to escalate matters.
See also Singapore.
Pointing out 'Germany' is the absolute absence of an argument - they're on a broadly similar path to everyone else.
With my local coffee shop no longer available, a few pieces along with their drip coffee (still available by post) is the new practice.
But I do think time is of the essence, and if they really think herd immunity is such a brilliant idea they should be willing to do their bit asap.
No volunteers yet, though.
It's a bit early to judge, but I expect many countries will prove to have done better than Germany.
1. Ease of transmission (looks high for Covid19).
2. Behaviour of population (distancing, hand washing, protective gear, lock down etc)
3. Potential targets in the population which are reduced by the number of people already infected.
Point 3 is the "herd immunity" principle. Vaccines reduce the number of targets by introducing immunity in a "painless" way. The level at which herd immunity is reached depends on points 1 and 2.
Managing point 2 is very tricky for obvious reasons.
A vaccine may take a long time to be developed and deployed. The most optimistic area I think is improvements in treatment. If some combination of existing drugs can reduce need for ICU and death rate then it will enable earlier relaxing of lock-down when the cost benefit estimates are made.
So what are the rules? And here we go back to @Cyclefree's complaints and also to arguments about whether journalists seeking clarity are guilty of asking inane questions of ministers.
I do wonder if the fuss over this incident is the product of the length of the drive: if the Jenricks senior lived a mile down the road then would anyone have batted an eyelid? It's a long trip and is thus made to look unnecessary and like a nice day trip out, but is travelling back and forth 40 miles in a sealed box in order to drop off a parcel qualitatively different from travelling back and forth 1 mile to the same end? I'm not at all sure that it is.
Even 1m youngsters volunteering to deliberately take it would achieve nothing.
Edited extra bit: for clarity, they often did kill themselves, and leave substantial sums to the emperor in their will. This ensured their children would not be disinherited of the remainder of the estate.
(South Korean crime drama is a hoot, btw.)
None of those countries have the solution, but they have shown how to buy time without completely crashing the economy.
Now they are doing the next best thing and popping up down the spices aisle.
'Taste it Gov, it's Star Anise'
'Right Wayne call the nick before they take all the fennel and cumin.'
But for your points 1 and 2, ease of transmission and behaviour, we are still not clear on how exactly this virus is passed on. It may be that we can ease parts of the lockdown safely now if only we knew which parts.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/aldi-apology-special-buys-removed-18069646
PS - Am I the only working class Northerner to have never set foot in an Aldi or Lidl?
But think about it in slightly wider terms. Every person in the population who is immune can reduce the spread of the virus. It's quite feasible that 1m volunteers could save 1m lives.
But I can tell you're not very keen.
I'll do a write up of what I think should have been pursued at some point later today.
It does raise a non-CV question, what about the home in his constituency, does he really ever use it? And if not, does he ever bill the taxpayer for it.
Being able to deploy a workable vaccine globally, six months earlier than otherwise, would save millions of lives.
Though the point about S Korea is that the systems were pretty well there already, pre pandemic.
IOW it would have to be an exception to our legal privacy regime; that didn’t really arise for them.
But you still feel a bit unsure whether you'd be willing to do it. Why? If you're advocating herd immunity, you're advocating 60% of the population getting it, including many people who would die. Why so hesitant when it comes to you getting it yourself?
https://twitter.com/_akiraendo/status/1248545616818368518?s=21
Waitrose, Asda, Morrisons
I wonder to myself...
But the complacency that set in late at all levels in late March was very visible, especially after the government announced they'd reopen schools. It was horribly timed, because just as people were relaxing what had been a fairly effective and not very disruptive response, loads of people were showing up from Europe and the US, and subject to a much gentler quarantine regime than the one they'd had when the infected people were coming from China.
Blaming Witty for getting the virus is right up there. I mean the bloke leading the government response has been forced to interact with lots of people as part of his job and was unfortunate to catch something that you are only really safe from if you walk around in a spacesuit 24/7.
Or why did Boris / Prince Charles get a test before other people.
Beyond that, the biggest problem with shopping now isn't lack of availability of goods but the length of the queues to get in. They are there for a good reason and make things civilized and relatively stress-free once you actually get inside, but you really don't want to be stuck at the back of an immense one. Therefore, one has to try to guess which shops will or won't have mega-queues outside them at any given time.
I made the mistake of turning up at the big Tesco down the road last Saturday morning and had to wait a full half-hour to gain admittance (and the queue behind me was getting ever-longer as well, so the back markers would've been kicking their heels for longer than that.) Mercifully the weather was tolerable, but all the same I shan't be making that mistake again.
My other is that the police should understand the rules they are seeking to enforce. I know, I know, a counsel of perfection.
But it’s not as if there hasn’t been plenty of guidance around, some of it from lawyers who regularly advise the police. Reading a page and a half of rules is not exactly onerous stuff.
It seems to me that there are some in the police force who are perhaps a bit too desperate to be seen as the good guys playing their part and are overreaching. Others are using the opportunity to boss others around and could not care less about the law or think that their uniform and fear will allow them to get away with it. Others are confused - which is the fault of their leaders, though individual officers are not excused the obligation to know what the law is, as “obeying orders” or, indeed, “ignorance of the law” are no excuse. And yet others are plain stupid or utterly lacking in judgment or common-sense.
And there are plenty of others who are enforcing the rules properly and intelligently. They get forgotten but should not be.
The virus has not and should not stop us criticising authorities when they get it wrong. We may not be able to go out but we can still think. The fact that authorities are doing this “for our own good” is not, never has been and never should be a justification for unlawfulness.
I note that when it comes to crimes such as burglary, anti-social behaviour and fraud, the police are generally not interested and say that they do not have the resources to deal with them. And yet now, somehow, they do have the resources to patrol parks and supermarkets and front gardens, and in some numbers too. I never again want to hear them bleating about a lack of resources.
I blame the MEPs in Brussels. But then, I blame them for everything - I expect they eat pangolins too.
But of course there wouldn't be large numbers of volunteers, That's why it's not a sensible suggestion.
So this sort of behaviour is both unlawful and stupid, given the purpose of the regulations.