The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forwrad.
No it doesn't.
Why? It should be you go for a test, if you are positive, very simple strategy, you don't return home. You can then a) be monitored and can get ontop of any issues early and b) minimize risk you give it to a load of other people you live with.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
That is why I said with testing. With the IPL all the players basically live together for the period of the competition, they could do that here with the players, umpires and support staff.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
I would envisage with all sports, players would be tested, so contact on the pitch wouldn't be an issue. There are few sports, even non-contact ones, where spread is totally impossible. Even tennis you'd get fluids and stuff on the ball.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forward, otherwise every one case, immediately become another 2-3 straight away.
Provided the isolation hotels aren't too grim you probably don't need the *forced* part, as most people don't want to infect their friends and families, and it's a game of averages where the strategy only works slightly less well if a few people don't cooperate. If you rub people up the wrong way with too much coercion you risk people avoiding reporting their symptoms, which is the worst of all worlds.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
The ball. Eventually everyone in the fielding team, excepting the wicketkeeper, will hold the ball and there's normally at least one player in the team who polishes it.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forwrad.
No it doesn't.
Why? It should be you go for a test, if you are positive, very simple strategy, you don't return home. You can then a) be monitored and can get ontop of any issues early and b) minimize risk you give it to a load of other people you live with.
Spains figures today demonstrate that being locked down with your family does not prevent new infections. Something different will need to be tried.
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
No. Its a stupid, dangerous, dumb idea.
Is it more dangerous than letting Covid kill someone?
I'd bow down to doctors like Foxy in that one but I suspect drinking bleach is more dangerous than the risk of Covid to the average person.
You are throwing around the word 'dumb', you could at least read both my post and Trump's comments. There was no mention of 'drinking'.
The original Oliver et al 1920 study from The Lancet is scanned here: tp://www.foodgrade-hydrogenperoxide.com/id42.html
They managed to go from an 80 percent death rate to a 48 percent death rate - and they were only using subjects who were considered hopeless cases.
It might be worth mentioning to you that medicine has advanced quite a lot since 1920 and so has peer reviewed science publication. I guess your knowledge of science is probably similar to Trump's. You are clutching at straws to defend the most inappropriate individual to hold high office in the history of western representative democracy.
Of course it has, but the research in question has never been contradicted. The rise of antibiotics meant research into hydrogen peroxide all but ceased. Which is fine, only in the current situation, with a rapidly spreading pandemic, a simpler 'all purpose' pathogen killer is actually what you need, because research into a silver bullet doesn't fit the time lines we are dealing with. Hence comments about 'injecting disinfectant', whichever mental recesses they come from, are interesting.
No it is a dumb distraction, and is stupid at so many levels. Either completely stupid (quite possible), or an attempt to appeal to the nutjobs and pseudoscience adherents that make up a large part of Trump's loyal fanbase. I hope it damages him. There are quite a few educated and intelligent people that voted for him last time because they hated Clinton. Let us hope they reconsider this time.
Yet it has been shown to work...
JFC. A single case study (not even a proper case-control study) in /1920/ does not count as "has been shown to work". You are spreading dangerous pseudo-science that can easily kill. Please just stop.
No, I am not. The study I referenced appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, and is a write up of dangerously I'll hospital patients receiving a treatment from doctors, via drip. None of this can be replicated 'at home', so cannot be considered an encouragement to self-medicate.
If you don't like it, I suggest you leave this discussion to grown up people.
You are writing about a subject about which you clearly know nothing & are endangering people to boot. "Oxygen therapy", oft administered in the form of intravenous Hydrogen Peroxide has been a mainstay of "alternative medicine" bullshit purveyors for decades. It has been claimed as a cure for cancer, AIDS, the flu & multiple sclerosis; all without any established medical evidence that any of these treatments worked. People have died after being injected with H2O2 by their (medically qualified even) woo practitioners.
Please just stop. A single paper in a journal published in 1920 on a non-blinded small group /is/ not evidence. It’s barely better than wishful thinking. I know you think you’re helping, but please take it from me: this is not helpful to anyone. At best it’s simply a distraction, at worst you’ll encourage people who don’t know any better to seek out treatment from charlatans which will end up killing them.
Thanks, but whilst obviously endeavouring not be be defamatory, obscene, or post legally actionable content, I'll continue to discuss topics I find interesting. Now run along.
While the rest of us continue to laugh at the ridiculous drivel you come out with. So long as nobody is daft enough to take your suggestions seriously, I am happy to see you providing some light-hearted entertainment on the forum.
I'm genuinely happy you find my posts of value, even if it is to laugh at.
On the other hand, some people have been murdered by bleach injections...
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forwrad.
No it doesn't.
Why? It should be you go for a test, if you are positive, very simple strategy, you don't return home. You can then a) be monitored and can get ontop of any issues early and b) minimize risk you give it to a load of other people you live with.
Society can't function like that.
Not sure of your circumstances but for normal people that is just ridiculous.
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
No. Its a stupid, dangerous, dumb idea.
Is it more dangerous than letting Covid kill someone?
I'd bow down to doctors like Foxy in that one but I suspect drinking bleach is more dangerous than the risk of Covid to the average person.
You are throwing around the word 'dumb', you could at least read both my post and Trump's comments. There was no mention of 'drinking'.
They managed to go from an 80 percent death rate to a 48 percent death rate - and they were only using subjects who were considered hopeless cases.
You are really trying to defend his comments? He came across as he was either thick, drunk or suffering from dementia. We know he doesn't drink so he doesn't have the Yeltsin excuse. He comes out with some really dumb statements, but it is unlikely that he is thick. How anyone could support excuse or vote for this buffoon astounds me.
I don't know what motivated his comments, and I haven't watched them - I hate cringey moments.
However, it must be said that injecting a disinfectant, in this case hydrogen peroxide, has been written up in the Lancet and actually shown remarkable results for a similar condition!
I guess he would rather follow or even lead the herd of those that are scientifically informed that are quite rightly sceptical about papers written in 1920 and are espoused by someone with zero scientific understanding, than join the herd that also believes in the flat earth, voodoo cures and 7 day creation. I know which herd I'd rather be in. PS. Please don't try injecting bleach. Try leaches instead. Equally useless, but less likely to kill you.
Trumps words are best understood when this young woman lipsynchs them. Remember, this is the President:
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
No. Its a stupid, dangerous, dumb idea.
Is it more dangerous than letting Covid kill someone?
I'd bow down to doctors like Foxy in that one but I suspect drinking bleach is more dangerous than the risk of Covid to the average person.
You are throwing around the word 'dumb', you could at least read both my post and Trump's comments. There was no mention of 'drinking'.
They managed to go from an 80 percent death rate to a 48 percent death rate - and they were only using subjects who were considered hopeless cases.
You are really trying to defend his comments? He came across as he was either thick, drunk or suffering from dementia. We know he doesn't drink so he doesn't have the Yeltsin excuse. He comes out with some really dumb statements, but it is unlikely that he is thick. How anyone could support excuse or vote for this buffoon astounds me.
I don't know what motivated his comments, and I haven't watched them - I hate cringey moments.
However, it must be said that injecting a disinfectant, in this case hydrogen peroxide, has been written up in the Lancet and actually shown remarkable results for a similar condition!
I guess he would rather follow or even lead the herd of those that are scientifically informed that are quite rightly sceptical about papers written in 1920 and are espoused by someone with zero scientific understanding, than join the herd that also believes in the flat earth, voodoo cures and 7 day creation. I know which herd I'd rather be in. PS. Please don't try injecting bleach. Try leaches instead. Equally useless, but less likely to kill you.
Trumps words are best understood when this young woman lipsynchs them. Remember, this is the President:
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
No. Its a stupid, dangerous, dumb idea.
Is it more dangerous than letting Covid kill someone?
I'd bow down to doctors like Foxy in that one but I suspect drinking bleach is more dangerous than the risk of Covid to the average person.
You are throwing around the word 'dumb', you could at least read both my post and Trump's comments. There was no mention of 'drinking'.
They managed to go from an 80 percent death rate to a 48 percent death rate - and they were only using subjects who were considered hopeless cases.
You are really trying to defend his comments? He came across as he was either thick, drunk or suffering from dementia. We know he doesn't drink so he doesn't have the Yeltsin excuse. He comes out with some really dumb statements, but it is unlikely that he is thick. How anyone could support excuse or vote for this buffoon astounds me.
I don't know what motivated his comments, and I haven't watched them - I hate cringey moments.
However, it must be said that injecting a disinfectant, in this case hydrogen peroxide, has been written up in the Lancet and actually shown remarkable results for a similar condition!
I guess he would rather follow or even lead the herd of those that are scientifically informed that are quite rightly sceptical about papers written in 1920 and are espoused by someone with zero scientific understanding, than join the herd that also believes in the flat earth, voodoo cures and 7 day creation. I know which herd I'd rather be in. PS. Please don't try injecting bleach. Try leaches instead. Equally useless, but less likely to kill you.
Trumps words are best understood when this young woman lipsynchs them. Remember, this is the President:
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
No. Its a stupid, dangerous, dumb idea.
Is it more dangerous than letting Covid kill someone?
I'd bow down to doctors like Foxy in that one but I suspect drinking bleach is more dangerous than the risk of Covid to the average person.
You are throwing around the word 'dumb', you could at least read both my post and Trump's comments. There was no mention of 'drinking'.
They managed to go from an 80 percent death rate to a 48 percent death rate - and they were only using subjects who were considered hopeless cases.
You are really trying to defend his comments? He came across as he was either thick, drunk or suffering from dementia. We know he doesn't drink so he doesn't have the Yeltsin excuse. He comes out with some really dumb statements, but it is unlikely that he is thick. How anyone could support excuse or vote for this buffoon astounds me.
I don't know what motivated his comments, and I haven't watched them - I hate cringey moments.
However, it must be said that injecting a disinfectant, in this case hydrogen peroxide, has been written up in the Lancet and actually shown remarkable results for a similar condition!
I guess he would rather follow or even lead the herd of those that are scientifically informed that are quite rightly sceptical about papers written in 1920 and are espoused by someone with zero scientific understanding, than join the herd that also believes in the flat earth, voodoo cures and 7 day creation. I know which herd I'd rather be in. PS. Please don't try injecting bleach. Try leaches instead. Equally useless, but less likely to kill you.
Trumps words are best understood when this young woman lipsynchs them. Remember, this is the President:
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
No. Its a stupid, dangerous, dumb idea.
Is it more dangerous than letting Covid kill someone?
I'd bow down to doctors like Foxy in that one but I suspect drinking bleach is more dangerous than the risk of Covid to the average person.
You are throwing around the word 'dumb', you could at least read both my post and Trump's comments. There was no mention of 'drinking'.
They managed to go from an 80 percent death rate to a 48 percent death rate - and they were only using subjects who were considered hopeless cases.
You are really trying to defend his comments? He came across as he was either thick, drunk or suffering from dementia. We know he doesn't drink so he doesn't have the Yeltsin excuse. He comes out with some really dumb statements, but it is unlikely that he is thick. How anyone could support excuse or vote for this buffoon astounds me.
I don't know what motivated his comments, and I haven't watched them - I hate cringey moments.
However, it must be said that injecting a disinfectant, in this case hydrogen peroxide, has been written up in the Lancet and actually shown remarkable results for a similar condition!
I guess he would rather follow or even lead the herd of those that are scientifically informed that are quite rightly sceptical about papers written in 1920 and are espoused by someone with zero scientific understanding, than join the herd that also believes in the flat earth, voodoo cures and 7 day creation. I know which herd I'd rather be in. PS. Please don't try injecting bleach. Try leaches instead. Equally useless, but less likely to kill you.
Trumps words are best understood when this young woman lipsynchs them. Remember, this is the President:
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
No. Its a stupid, dangerous, dumb idea.
Is it more dangerous than letting Covid kill someone?
I'd bow down to doctors like Foxy in that one but I suspect drinking bleach is more dangerous than the risk of Covid to the average person.
You are throwing around the word 'dumb', you could at least read both my post and Trump's comments. There was no mention of 'drinking'.
They managed to go from an 80 percent death rate to a 48 percent death rate - and they were only using subjects who were considered hopeless cases.
You are really trying to defend his comments? He came across as he was either thick, drunk or suffering from dementia. We know he doesn't drink so he doesn't have the Yeltsin excuse. He comes out with some really dumb statements, but it is unlikely that he is thick. How anyone could support excuse or vote for this buffoon astounds me.
I don't know what motivated his comments, and I haven't watched them - I hate cringey moments.
However, it must be said that injecting a disinfectant, in this case hydrogen peroxide, has been written up in the Lancet and actually shown remarkable results for a similar condition!
I guess he would rather follow or even lead the herd of those that are scientifically informed that are quite rightly sceptical about papers written in 1920 and are espoused by someone with zero scientific understanding, than join the herd that also believes in the flat earth, voodoo cures and 7 day creation. I know which herd I'd rather be in. PS. Please don't try injecting bleach. Try leaches instead. Equally useless, but less likely to kill you.
Trumps words are best understood when this young woman lipsynchs them. Remember, this is the President:
Very entertaining, but as our resident doc, I would expect you to engage with the science, rather than echoing the herd.
I guess he would rather follow or even lead the herd of those that are scientifically informed that are quite rightly sceptical about papers written in 1920 and are espoused by someone with zero scientific understanding, than join the herd that also believes in the flat earth, voodoo cures and 7 day creation. I know which herd I'd rather be in. PS. Please don't try injecting bleach. Try leaches instead. Equally useless, but less likely to kill you.
Leeches are still used. In one past NHS incarnation I 'managed' the Trusts' leech keeper.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forward, otherwise every one case, immediately become another 2-3 straight away.
Provided the isolation hotels aren't too grim you probably don't need the *forced* part, as most people don't want to infect their friends and families, and it's a game of averages where the strategy only works slightly less well if a few people don't cooperate. If you rub people up the wrong way with too much coercion you risk people avoiding reporting their symptoms, which is the worst of all worlds.
Anything of a lesser standard than Claridges....screw you guys, I'm going home :-)
More seriously though, most uni halls these days are en-suite and perfectly pleasant, and normally divided into small flat type units each with their own kitchen / living area. TV, internet, your own en-suite room, that seems perfectly reasonable.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forward, otherwise every one case, immediately become another 2-3 straight away.
Provided the isolation hotels aren't too grim you probably don't need the *forced* part, as most people don't want to infect their friends and families, and it's a game of averages where the strategy only works slightly less well if a few people don't cooperate. If you rub people up the wrong way with too much coercion you risk people avoiding reporting their symptoms, which is the worst of all worlds.
So everyone rocks up to the testing centres with a suitcase and an iPad?
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
That is why I said with testing. With the IPL all the players basically live together for the period of the competition, they could do that here with the players, umpires and support staff.
People ask: why has Sweden behaved differently to Denmark and Norway?
Possible explanations are that (a) Denmark is much more densely populated than Sweden, and (b) Norway has a more conservative government than Sweden which therefore may be more risk-averse.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forwrad.
No it doesn't.
Why? It should be you go for a test, if you are positive, very simple strategy, you don't return home. You can then a) be monitored and can get ontop of any issues early and b) minimize risk you give it to a load of other people you live with.
Spains figures today demonstrate that being locked down with your family does not prevent new infections. Something different will need to be tried.
A new metric is needed: Household infection rates (I assume/hope the goverment has this).
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
I would envisage with all sports, players would be tested, so contact on the pitch wouldn't be an issue. There are few sports, even non-contact ones, where spread is totally impossible. Even tennis you'd get fluids and stuff on the ball.
Thinking about it, there are some suitably isolated sports.
Bowls, and derivations thereof Darts (already being done remotely) Motor racing
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forwrad.
No it doesn't.
Why? It should be you go for a test, if you are positive, very simple strategy, you don't return home. You can then a) be monitored and can get ontop of any issues early and b) minimize risk you give it to a load of other people you live with.
Society can't function like that.
Not sure of your circumstances but for normal people that is just ridiculous.
Why? You won't be going to work anyway. And for most people it will be 2 weeks. And you will be monitored and cared for. Food and medication provided. I would much prefer to be in that situation, than at home thinking shit at what point is bad, really bad and I need to 999 it?
Now single parents, yes I can see the issue. That would need some thinking about.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
I would envisage with all sports, players would be tested, so contact on the pitch wouldn't be an issue. There are few sports, even non-contact ones, where spread is totally impossible. Even tennis you'd get fluids and stuff on the ball.
Thinking about it, there are some suitably isolated sports.
Bowls, and derivations thereof Darts (already being done remotely) Motor racing
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forward, otherwise every one case, immediately become another 2-3 straight away.
Provided the isolation hotels aren't too grim you probably don't need the *forced* part, as most people don't want to infect their friends and families, and it's a game of averages where the strategy only works slightly less well if a few people don't cooperate. If you rub people up the wrong way with too much coercion you risk people avoiding reporting their symptoms, which is the worst of all worlds.
Anything of a lesser standard than Claridges....screw you guys, I'm going home :-)
More seriously though, most uni halls these days are en-suite and perfectly pleasant, and normally divided into small flat type units each with their own kitchen / living area. TV, internet, your own en-suite room, that seems perfectly reasonable.
You try this, from the Guardian. 'Let them eat cake: New Zealand couple document luxury life in Covid-19 quarantine' It's from a blog; 'A couple in government-enforced quarantine at an Auckland airport hotel are documenting their experience of luxury lockdown – and causing envy worldwide with images of waffles delivered to the door, mini-fridges stocked full of cake, and escorted walks under stormy New Zealand skies.'
People ask: why has Sweden behaved differently to Denmark and Norway?
Possible explanations are that (a) Denmark is much more densely populated than Sweden, and (b) Norway has a more conservative government than Sweden which therefore may be more risk-averse.
You'd expect Sweden to be doing better than Denmark based on pop density. Is it ?
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forwrad.
No it doesn't.
Why? It should be you go for a test, if you are positive, very simple strategy, you don't return home. You can then a) be monitored and can get ontop of any issues early and b) minimize risk you give it to a load of other people you live with.
Society can't function like that.
Not sure of your circumstances but for normal people that is just ridiculous.
Why? You won't be going to work anyway. And for most people it will be 2 weeks. And you will be monitored and cared for. Food and medication provided.
I would much prefer to be in that situation, than at home thinking shit at what point is bad, really bad and I need to 999 it?
Now single parents, yes I can see the issue. That would need some thinking about.
As I said there is an over-representation on this site of well off blokes, perhaps single who knows, perhaps with a bunch of wifelets. But always have in mind the people who live here when you (or Edmund - hi Edmund!) think up some new bonkers wheeze to control the virus.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forwrad.
No it doesn't.
Why? It should be you go for a test, if you are positive, very simple strategy, you don't return home. You can then a) be monitored and can get ontop of any issues early and b) minimize risk you give it to a load of other people you live with.
Society can't function like that.
Not sure of your circumstances but for normal people that is just ridiculous.
Why? You won't be going to work anyway. And for most people it will be 2 weeks. And you will be monitored and cared for. Food and medication provided.
I would much prefer to be in that situation, than at home thinking shit at what point is bad, really bad and I need to 999 it?
Now single parents, yes I can see the issue. That would need some thinking about.
As I said there is an over-representation on this site of well off blokes, perhaps single who knows, perhaps with a bunch of wifelets. But always have in mind the people who live here when you (or Edmund - hi Edmund!) think up some new bonkers wheeze to control the virus.
And they would be against an upgrade for 2 weeks to live in a hotel or nice student apartments? All food, medication, etc provided for.
We actually really really don't want infected people going back to blocks of flats like that. Very easy to infect the whole place as you go touching the buttons in the lift, go down the stairs to take the rubbish out, etc.
This is exactly what they did in China. Present at fever clinic, you don't leave their care unless you are negative or have been through the virus.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forward, otherwise every one case, immediately become another 2-3 straight away.
Provided the isolation hotels aren't too grim you probably don't need the *forced* part, as most people don't want to infect their friends and families, and it's a game of averages where the strategy only works slightly less well if a few people don't cooperate. If you rub people up the wrong way with too much coercion you risk people avoiding reporting their symptoms, which is the worst of all worlds.
So everyone rocks up to the testing centres with a suitcase and an iPad?
That would be one way to do it... Or something like: 1) Live alone? Your personal assigned previously-infected chauffeur will take you home to pack then drive you on to the Quarantine Manor Hotel and Golf Course 2) Live with family? Call them on the way and get them to pack your bags, your driver will deliver them later
Regrettably having one of the world's most stringent lockdowns doesn't seem to be making up for the fact that they didn't introduce social distancing early enough, allowing huge gatherings to take place at the beginning of March.
For example:
"Women workers in Spain are marking International Women's Day with an unprecedented strike targeting gender inequality and sexual discrimination. Unions said 5.3 million women had joined the 24-hour strike, backed by 10 unions and some of Spain's top women politicians. Hundreds of thousands of women have joined street protests across Spain, shouting "if we stop, the world stops"."
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
No. Its a stupid, dangerous, dumb idea.
Is it more dangerous than letting Covid kill someone?
I'd bow down to doctors like Foxy in that one but I suspect drinking bleach is more dangerous than the risk of Covid to the average person.
You are throwing around the word 'dumb', you could at least read both my post and Trump's comments. There was no mention of 'drinking'.
The original Oliver et al 1920 study from The Lancet is scanned here: tp://www.foodgrade-hydrogenperoxide.com/id42.html
They managed to go from an 80 percent death rate to a 48 percent death rate - and they were only using subjects who were considered hopeless cases.
It might be worth mentioning to you that medicine has advanced quite a lot since 1920 and so has peer reviewed science publication. I guess your knowledge of science is probably similar to Trump's. You are clutching at straws to defend the most inappropriate individual to hold high office in the history of western representative democracy.
Of course it has, but the research in question has never been contradicted. The rise of antibiotics meant research into hydrogen peroxide all but ceased. Which is fine, only in the current situation, with a rapidly spreading pandemic, a simpler 'all purpose' pathogen killer is actually what you need, because research into a silver bullet doesn't fit the time lines we are dealing with. Hence comments about 'injecting disinfectant', whichever mental recesses they come from, are interesting.
No it is a dumb distraction, and is stupid at so many levels. Either completely stupid (quite possible), or an attempt to appeal to the nutjobs and pseudoscience adherents that make up a large part of Trump's loyal fanbase. I hope it damages him. There are quite a few educated and intelligent people that voted for him last time because they hated Clinton. Let us hope they reconsider this time.
Yet it has been shown to work...
JFC. A single case study (not even a proper case-control study) in /1920/ does not count as "has been shown to work". You are spreading dangerous pseudo-science that can easily kill. Please just stop.
No, I am not. The study I referenced appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, and is a write up of dangerously I'll hospital patients receiving a treatment from doctors, via drip. None of this can be replicated 'at home', so cannot be considered an encouragement to self-medicate.
If you don't like it, I suggest you leave this discussion to grown up people.
Does the original paper have:
1. random allocation.
2. controls, with placebo of distilled water, maybe also testing another drug.
3. blinding (ie. the treating medic doesn't know what is being injected).
If not then it is unacceptable. If Lind could use controls for his scurvy work in the 18th century ...
Don't be silly, we know for certain there were no controls in the processes which led to vaccination and penicillin being discovered, and even controlled experiments arise out of uncontrolled observations like the one in the 1920 paper (because how else do you decide,what to do experiments about?) We have vi ag ra if you can write that word without being modded) purely because of a couple of anecdotes on the lines of "can't say it does much for the angina, doc, but..." If that was a good enough basis for further controlled experiments why would the observations in the 1920 paper not be?
I quite agree, one has to distinguish between ideas and their testing. Absolutely.
But (a) we see the penicillin work with hindsight - we forget (collectively) about the experiments/anecdotal work that didn't work
(b) the Lancet paper effectively remains anecdotal - it would not be acceptable to publish such work today as actually showing an effect, bewcause of the small sample size, placebo effect, unconscious selection of patient, etc. etc.
(c) it's the way in which H202 is being pushed as if it has already passed the clinical trials you suggest that is the concern today.
It's actually an interesting notion, whether a systemic poison such as H202 could have such a specificv effect on viral pneumonia - and wehther it is the oxygen pure and simple, or some specific oxidation reaction with the virus. But peroxides are highly toxic - that's why we have vitamin C intake to act as antioxidants. It all reminds me a bit of the old notion that it was the acidity in fruit that killed scurvy, so the poor matelots got to drink diluted oil of vitriol.
Indeed, if James Lind could run a controlled trial for lemon juice and iirc oil of vitriol as alternative treatments for scurvy, it's a shame that the 1920 chaps didn't do that for their peroxide worek. For all I know it was all the pushing and pulling during the injection that did the trick ...
I assume the peroxide enthusiasts are only asking for further experimnents (controlled, this time) and I can't for the life of me see what is wrong with that.
You might assume that, but sadly you’d be wrong. Administering H2O2 as "Oxygen therapy" has a long and sordid history as a woo treatment for all sorts of ailments. Cancer, AIDS, MS, you name it. People have died as a result: air embolisms kill & air embolisms are exactly what you get if you inject H2O2 into people’s veins - the anaesthetic literature is littered with case reports of patients dying simply after having their wounds cleaned with weak H2O2 solutions.
The "peroxide enthusiasts" on here might believe that they are "just asking questions", but what they’re actually doing is running support for the charlatans and quacks who fraudulently push their woo therapies on the desperate, whether intentionally or not.
We /have/ ways of directly oxygenating the blood; injecting H2O2 is not one that modern medicine chooses to use for good reasons. Since this appears to be the only justification for using it put forward in that 1920 paper, there seems to be no justification for using H2O2 in this fashion to treat Covid-19. Any proposed experiment to test it would fail to pass ethical scrutiny due to this obvious problem.
Presumably, once someone in a household tests positive for coronavirus, it's too late - if anyone else in the household is going to get it, they'll already have it.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
I would envisage with all sports, players would be tested, so contact on the pitch wouldn't be an issue. There are few sports, even non-contact ones, where spread is totally impossible. Even tennis you'd get fluids and stuff on the ball.
Thinking about it, there are some suitably isolated sports.
Bowls, and derivations thereof Darts (already being done remotely) Motor racing
Many athletics sports can observe isolation.
True. I also forgot greyhounds. No humans there at all.
Presumably, once someone in a household tests positive for coronavirus, it's too late - if anyone else in the household is going to get it, they'll already have it.
No. That's far from a given. But being coped up with them for the next 3 weeks pretty much ensures it unless you go to incredible lengths in regards to isolation and cleaning. And, lets not forget those people can't go anywhere either while you are in the property in case they have contract it.
Instead if you isolate the infected person away from home. Test the other member of the household, if they are negative, great they can carry on as normal.
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
They used lot of weird stuff in the 1920s; most of it (like H2O2) with marginal efficacy. The second paper you cite has zero to do with injecting bleach, but about therapeutic approaches to targeting hydrogen peroxide metabolism... in stroke victims: ...We believe that the therapeutic potential of drugs targeting H2O2 metabolism needs to be explored in depth at a preclinical level in order to transform their theoretical use in brain ischaemia in a true clinical application....
On another subject, I've just looked at one of this site's other minor obsessions: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Not much wind power being generated today. But 24% of our needs being met by solar! (caveat - there is not a little guesswork in calculating the figure for solar). Also, no coal at all. Demand is down around one quarter to one third from normal.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forwrad.
No it doesn't.
Why? It should be you go for a test, if you are positive, very simple strategy, you don't return home. You can then a) be monitored and can get ontop of any issues early and b) minimize risk you give it to a load of other people you live with.
Society can't function like that.
Not sure of your circumstances but for normal people that is just ridiculous.
Why? You won't be going to work anyway. And for most people it will be 2 weeks. And you will be monitored and cared for. Food and medication provided.
I would much prefer to be in that situation, than at home thinking shit at what point is bad, really bad and I need to 999 it?
Now single parents, yes I can see the issue. That would need some thinking about.
As I said there is an over-representation on this site of well off blokes, perhaps single who knows, perhaps with a bunch of wifelets. But always have in mind the people who live here when you (or Edmund - hi Edmund!) think up some new bonkers wheeze to control the virus.
In defence of bonkers wheezes, we're currently several weeks into the British implementation of what happened when some bright spark in the Chinese health bureaucracy said, "OK guys, hear me out, what if we got 1.4 billion people to stay at home for a couple of months".
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forwrad.
No it doesn't.
Why? It should be you go for a test, if you are positive, very simple strategy, you don't return home. You can then a) be monitored and can get ontop of any issues early and b) minimize risk you give it to a load of other people you live with.
Spains figures today demonstrate that being locked down with your family does not prevent new infections. Something different will need to be tried.
A new metric is needed: Household infection rates (I assume/hope the goverment has this).
The deaths figure was lower today but the new infection figure was near peak levels
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
I'm not necessarily too downcast by Spain's 6,000-odd new case - it was less than 2,000 a few days back. How much of this is down to reporting lag? The general trend based on a seven-day rolling average is still downwards. Hopefully just a statistical or reporting blip.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forward, otherwise every one case, immediately become another 2-3 straight away.
Provided the isolation hotels aren't too grim you probably don't need the *forced* part, as most people don't want to infect their friends and families, and it's a game of averages where the strategy only works slightly less well if a few people don't cooperate. If you rub people up the wrong way with too much coercion you risk people avoiding reporting their symptoms, which is the worst of all worlds.
So everyone rocks up to the testing centres with a suitcase and an iPad?
That would be one way to do it... Or something like: 1) Live alone? Your personal assigned previously-infected chauffeur will take you home to pack then drive you on to the Quarantine Manor Hotel and Golf Course 2) Live with family? Call them on the way and get them to pack your bags, your driver will deliver them later
What about your 7-yr old son? Off he goes. Probably better than Summerfields, that said.
What about both parents of a large or even small family?
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
The ball. Eventually everyone in the fielding team, excepting the wicketkeeper, will hold the ball and there's normally at least one player in the team who polishes it.
Gloves could be worn, but I'm not sure how you protect the umpires and wicketkeepers. The practice of polishing the ball could be banned. I know this would handicap the Australians, but too bad.
Seriously, there are a number of sports where post-C19 changes might be for the better.
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
They used lot of weird stuff in the 1920s; most of it (like H2O2) with marginal efficacy. The second paper you cite has zero to do with injecting bleach, but about therapeutic approaches to targeting hydrogen peroxide metabolism... in stroke victims: ...We believe that the therapeutic potential of drugs targeting H2O2 metabolism needs to be explored in depth at a preclinical level in order to transform their theoretical use in brain ischaemia in a true clinical application....
I know - it was the first Google result I came to. I then found the more relevant study the first one referenced.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forward, otherwise every one case, immediately become another 2-3 straight away.
Provided the isolation hotels aren't too grim you probably don't need the *forced* part, as most people don't want to infect their friends and families, and it's a game of averages where the strategy only works slightly less well if a few people don't cooperate. If you rub people up the wrong way with too much coercion you risk people avoiding reporting their symptoms, which is the worst of all worlds.
So everyone rocks up to the testing centres with a suitcase and an iPad?
That would be one way to do it... Or something like: 1) Live alone? Your personal assigned previously-infected chauffeur will take you home to pack then drive you on to the Quarantine Manor Hotel and Golf Course 2) Live with family? Call them on the way and get them to pack your bags, your driver will deliver them later
It's perhaps not so bad as it looks. Looking at the source for the Worldometer numbers, it seems that Spain recently began including those tested positive on the basis of antibodies to the virus in addition to those confirmed by PCR. It looks like this has tended to inflate recent figures, with the caveat that my Spanish isn't up to much!
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forwrad.
No it doesn't.
Why? It should be you go for a test, if you are positive, very simple strategy, you don't return home. You can then a) be monitored and can get ontop of any issues early and b) minimize risk you give it to a load of other people you live with.
Society can't function like that.
Not sure of your circumstances but for normal people that is just ridiculous.
Why? You won't be going to work anyway. And for most people it will be 2 weeks. And you will be monitored and cared for. Food and medication provided.
I would much prefer to be in that situation, than at home thinking shit at what point is bad, really bad and I need to 999 it?
Now single parents, yes I can see the issue. That would need some thinking about.
As I said there is an over-representation on this site of well off blokes, perhaps single who knows, perhaps with a bunch of wifelets. But always have in mind the people who live here when you (or Edmund - hi Edmund!) think up some new bonkers wheeze to control the virus.
In defence of bonkers wheezes, we're currently several weeks into the British implementation of what happened when some bright spark in the Chinese health bureaucracy said, "OK guys, hear me out, what if we got 1.4 billion people to stay at home for a couple of months".
Another issue which hasn't received enough attention is how the government can phase out the extraordinary economic assistance plans such as the furlough scheme, without provoking the kind of disruption they were trying to avoid in the first place but also without spending megabucks for ages on subsidising jobs which are never going to come back.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
The ball. Eventually everyone in the fielding team, excepting the wicketkeeper, will hold the ball and there's normally at least one player in the team who polishes it.
Gloves could be worn, but I'm not sure how you protect the umpires and wicketkeepers. The practice of polishing the ball could be banned. I know this would handicap the Australians, but too bad.
Seriously, there are a number of sports where post-C19 changes might be for the better.
Umpires could wear visors and masks.
Given that the link below suggests that outdoor transmission is unlikely/hard this shouldn't be much of a problem.
Get sport on - get anything on - raise the lockdown !
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
They used lot of weird stuff in the 1920s; most of it (like H2O2) with marginal efficacy. The second paper you cite has zero to do with injecting bleach, but about therapeutic approaches to targeting hydrogen peroxide metabolism... in stroke victims: ...We believe that the therapeutic potential of drugs targeting H2O2 metabolism needs to be explored in depth at a preclinical level in order to transform their theoretical use in brain ischaemia in a true clinical application....
In the mid to late 40's Hydrogen Peroxide was used as a disinfectant wound cleanser for minor skin injuries. Recall being told that the frothing was the cleansing. Quite an encouragement to use it.
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forward, otherwise every one case, immediately become another 2-3 straight away.
Provided the isolation hotels aren't too grim you probably don't need the *forced* part, as most people don't want to infect their friends and families, and it's a game of averages where the strategy only works slightly less well if a few people don't cooperate. If you rub people up the wrong way with too much coercion you risk people avoiding reporting their symptoms, which is the worst of all worlds.
So everyone rocks up to the testing centres with a suitcase and an iPad?
That would be one way to do it... Or something like: 1) Live alone? Your personal assigned previously-infected chauffeur will take you home to pack then drive you on to the Quarantine Manor Hotel and Golf Course 2) Live with family? Call them on the way and get them to pack your bags, your driver will deliver them later
One of the apparent anomalies of this virus is that it seems to be highly infectious.
Yet people living in close proximity do not seem to inevitably get it.
This leads people to talk of massive asymptomatic infection rates. But then subsequent tests, apparently, don't show this.
Presumably, once someone in a household tests positive for coronavirus, it's too late - if anyone else in the household is going to get it, they'll already have it.
Yes, maybe. Quarantine all contacts then?
Perhaps scaling up home delivery of food for quarantine households, would be a better approach then yanking individuals into hotels. I hope the government will come up with something that will be more effective than what we had before the lockdown.
"Former top civil servant Gus O'Donnell urges ministers to use 'wellbeing' analysis to allow a Sweden-style 'phased' easing of the coronavirus lockdown by balancing quality of life against the death toll
He urged ministers to use quality of life measures balanced against death toll Would allow UK to gradually lift lockdown whil ekeeping most vulnerable safe London School of Economics Team analysed pros and cons of lockdown"
Another issue which hasn't received enough attention is how the government can phase out the extraordinary economic assistance plans such as the furlough scheme, without provoking the kind of disruption they were trying to avoid in the first place but also without spending megabucks for ages on subsidising jobs which are never going to come back.
I can think of one way they can phase it out.
Reduce it by 20% a week.
Employers will soon have the slothful back at work.
JFC. A single case study (not even a proper case-control study) in /1920/ does not count as "has been shown to work". You are spreading dangerous pseudo-science that can easily kill. Please just stop.
Would you also reject, say, a theory of gravity dating from /1917/ on the grounds of its date? The study is partially controlled, and anyway you can actually do science without controlled and blinded experiments and discover, say, vaccination and penicillin.
Say you have picked some weird looking mushrooms and you feed,one to the dog, which froths at the mouth and dies in convulsions. Do you exercise caution over the remaining mushrooms or do you say yebbut without a second dog which was fed a placebo, with the feeder being blinded as to which dog got what, this tells us absolutely nothing about the mushrooms, which I shall now eat?
I don't set much store by the hydrogen theory, but your rejection of it is the,pseudoscience.
Actually there has been a ton of evidence post-1920 about the extreme dangers of bleach and there's a reason that research into using it as a digestible treatment ceased. There's a reason why it comes with toxic warning labels saying to never ingest. There's a reason why the companies that sell it are warning you not to do this bloody moronic idea.
The frothing at the mouth is ingesting bleach, not advising not to do so.
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
No. Its a stupid, dangerous, dumb idea.
Is it more dangerous than letting Covid kill someone?
I'd bow down to doctors like Foxy in that one but I suspect drinking bleach is more dangerous than the risk of Covid to the average person.
You are throwing around the word 'dumb', you could at least read both my post and Trump's comments. There was no mention of 'drinking'.
The original Oliver et al 1920 study from The Lancet is scanned here: tp://www.foodgrade-hydrogenperoxide.com/id42.html
They managed to go from an 80 percent death rate to a 48 percent death rate - and they were only using subjects who were considered hopeless cases.
It might be worth mentioning to you that medicine has advanced quite a lot since 1920 and so has peer reviewed science publication. I guess your knowledge of science is probably similar to Trump's. You are clutching at straws to defend the most inappropriate individual to hold high office in the history of western representative democracy.
Of course it has, but the research in question has never been contradicted. The rise of antibiotics meant research into hydrogen peroxide all but ceased. Which is fine, only in the current situation, with a rapidly spreading pandemic, a simpler 'all purpose' pathogen killer is actually what you need, because research into a silver bullet doesn't fit the time lines we are dealing with. Hence comments about 'injecting disinfectant', whichever mental recesses they come from, are interesting.
No it is a dumb distraction, and is stupid at so many levels. Either completely stupid (quite possible), or an attempt to appeal to the nutjobs and pseudoscience adherents that make up a large part of Trump's loyal fanbase. I hope it damages him. There are quite a few educated and intelligent people that voted for him last time because they hated Clinton. Let us hope they reconsider this time.
Yet it has been shown to work...
JFC. A single case study (not even a proper case-control study) in /1920/ does not count as "has been shown to work". You are spreading dangerous pseudo-science that can easily kill. Please just stop.
No, I am not. The study I referenced appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, and is a write up of dangerously I'll hospital patients receiving a treatment from doctors, via drip. None of this can be replicated 'at home', so cannot be considered an encouragement to self-medicate.
If you don't like it, I suggest you leave this discussion to grown up people.
You are writing about a subject about which you clearly know nothing & are endangering people to boot. "Oxygen therapy", oft administered in the form of intravenous Hydrogen Peroxide has been a mainstay of "alternative medicine" bullshit purveyors for decades. It has been claimed as a cure for cancer, AIDS, the flu & multiple sclerosis; all without any established medical evidence that any of these treatments worked. People have died after being injected with H2O2 by their (medically qualified even) woo practitioners.
Please just stop. A single paper in a journal published in 1920 on a non-blinded small group /is/ not evidence. It’s barely better than wishful thinking. I know you think you’re helping, but please take it from me: this is not helpful to anyone. At best it’s simply a distraction, at worst you’ll encourage people who don’t know any better to seek out treatment from charlatans which will end up killing them.
Thanks, but whilst obviously endeavouring not be be defamatory, obscene, or post legally actionable content, I'll continue to discuss topics I find interesting. Now run along.
While the rest of us continue to laugh at the ridiculous drivel you come out with. So long as nobody is daft enough to take your suggestions seriously, I am happy to see you providing some light-hearted entertainment on the forum.
I'm genuinely happy you find my posts of value, even if it is to laugh at.
On the other hand, some people have been murdered by bleach injections...
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forward, otherwise every one case, immediately become another 2-3 straight away.
Provided the isolation hotels aren't too grim you probably don't need the *forced* part, as most people don't want to infect their friends and families, and it's a game of averages where the strategy only works slightly less well if a few people don't cooperate. If you rub people up the wrong way with too much coercion you risk people avoiding reporting their symptoms, which is the worst of all worlds.
So everyone rocks up to the testing centres with a suitcase and an iPad?
That would be one way to do it... Or something like: 1) Live alone? Your personal assigned previously-infected chauffeur will take you home to pack then drive you on to the Quarantine Manor Hotel and Golf Course 2) Live with family? Call them on the way and get them to pack your bags, your driver will deliver them later
One of the apparent anomalies of this virus is that it seems to be highly infectious.
Yet people living in close proximity do not seem to inevitably get it.
This leads people to talk of massive asymptomatic infection rates. But then subsequent tests, apparently, don't show this.
There is something missing here, I think.
I am no expert, but I am going to guess that vast majority of transmission is via some specific avenues.
At the moment, we don't really know for certain, is receiving parcels have any probability at all, what about passing bits of paper, or every day items to one another.
Or is this idea of viral load correct and all but spending x minutes in an enclosed space fairly close in somebodies presence under particular conditions really the only high probability way you get it.
It is clear from the likes of Witty's responses to questions about that, they don't know.
On another subject, I've just looked at one of this site's other minor obsessions: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Not much wind power being generated today. But 24% of our needs being met by solar! (caveat - there is not a little guesswork in calculating the figure for solar). Also, no coal at all. Demand is down around one quarter to one third from normal.
3GW from burning Polish forests in converted coal power plants, though.
Another issue which hasn't received enough attention is how the government can phase out the extraordinary economic assistance plans such as the furlough scheme, without provoking the kind of disruption they were trying to avoid in the first place but also without spending megabucks for ages on subsidising jobs which are never going to come back.
I can think of one way they can phase it out.
Reduce it by 20% a week.
Employers will soon have the slothful back at work.
The problem is that different sectors (even the long-term very viable ones) will have very different rates of recovery of activity, and even within a given sector it will be very patchy.
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
I saw this sugested elsewhere. It looks like he's just doing a statistical calculation and I'm wondering what the mechanism is. Could it be that those likely to succumb do so within that time period or that behaviour alters to limit it?
The big one from that study is home outbreaks. Once you have one person in your home who gets it, very high transmission rate. Moving to a forced remote isolation in uni dorms / hotels / conference centres has to be in the plan going forward, otherwise every one case, immediately become another 2-3 straight away.
Provided the isolation hotels aren't too grim you probably don't need the *forced* part, as most people don't want to infect their friends and families, and it's a game of averages where the strategy only works slightly less well if a few people don't cooperate. If you rub people up the wrong way with too much coercion you risk people avoiding reporting their symptoms, which is the worst of all worlds.
So everyone rocks up to the testing centres with a suitcase and an iPad?
That would be one way to do it... Or something like: 1) Live alone? Your personal assigned previously-infected chauffeur will take you home to pack then drive you on to the Quarantine Manor Hotel and Golf Course 2) Live with family? Call them on the way and get them to pack your bags, your driver will deliver them later
What about your 7-yr old son? Off he goes. Probably better than Summerfields, that said.
What about both parents of a large or even small family?
What about...
Sure, there's no limit to the what abouts. But the point about this is that you don't have to nail every single case; The goal is to get the average rate of infection down. Some people will be weird about it and refuse, some people would normally be able to do it but the only people who could look after the kids are the grandparents and they'd be at risk of infection, etc etc, but for everyone who can and does go and stay in a quarantine hotel, you lower the rate of infection.
PS. In case this sounds like people advocating this are just pulling impractical ideas out of our arses, Japan is *already* quarantining infectious people in hotels. (I admit they may not yet have implemented the previously-infected-person chauffeur part.)
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
I read that too. Now, it seems a little optimistic - (and even if true, the data appears to show it lasts longer than 70 days) but what is striking from the article is how little we really know about viruses in general and the reason they die out. It's recognised that the coronovirus which causes the common cold dies out in summer, but if the article is accurate, there is no real consensus why, and one theory is rival viruses which attack the virus. I'm not getting my hopes up, but it's interesting nonetheless.
In a similar spirit of straw-clutching, there was a rather speculative article by Janet Daley yesterday in which she advanced the theory that the reason the under 30s don't seem to be getting it nearly so badly is the MMR vaccine. The article was rescued from total insubstantiality by reference to scientists in Cambridge who have proposed the same thing in a paper, albeit one which has not yet been peer reviewed. It would be pretty exciting if this turned out to be true though - relatively easy to vaccinate everyone based on a vaccine which already exists. Should be easy enough to dig a bit deeper though - what have other countries done with MMR? Can we identify any un-MMR'd under 30s - what has happened to them? And so on.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Good luck getting the American golfers to travel anywhere during a crisis. And equally good luck getting the US to allow entry of nationals of the other top players from many different countries.
Setting up a tournament is quite do-able but getting a major or wgc field together wont happen in 2020 imo.
Another issue which hasn't received enough attention is how the government can phase out the extraordinary economic assistance plans such as the furlough scheme, without provoking the kind of disruption they were trying to avoid in the first place but also without spending megabucks for ages on subsidising jobs which are never going to come back.
I can think of one way they can phase it out.
Reduce it by 20% a week.
Employers will soon have the slothful back at work.
The problem is that different sectors (even the long-term very viable ones) will have very different rates of recovery of activity, and even within a given sector it will be very patchy.
It doesn't sound that difficult - when we open up retail, discontinue the scheme for retail outlets - ok give them a week to get their house in order.
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
Another issue which hasn't received enough attention is how the government can phase out the extraordinary economic assistance plans such as the furlough scheme, without provoking the kind of disruption they were trying to avoid in the first place but also without spending megabucks for ages on subsidising jobs which are never going to come back.
I can think of one way they can phase it out.
Reduce it by 20% a week.
Employers will soon have the slothful back at work.
The problem is that different sectors (even the long-term very viable ones) will have very different rates of recovery of activity, and even within a given sector it will be very patchy.
It doesn't sound that difficult - when we open up retail, discontinue the scheme for retail outlets - ok give them a week to get their house in order.
JFC. A single case study (not even a proper case-control study) in /1920/ does not count as "has been shown to work". You are spreading dangerous pseudo-science that can easily kill. Please just stop.
Would you also reject, say, a theory of gravity dating from /1917/ on the grounds of its date? The study is partially controlled, and anyway you can actually do science without controlled and blinded experiments and discover, say, vaccination and penicillin.
Say you have picked some weird looking mushrooms and you feed,one to the dog, which froths at the mouth and dies in convulsions. Do you exercise caution over the remaining mushrooms or do you say yebbut without a second dog which was fed a placebo, with the feeder being blinded as to which dog got what, this tells us absolutely nothing about the mushrooms, which I shall now eat?
I don't set much store by the hydrogen theory, but your rejection of it is the,pseudoscience.
Actually there has been a ton of evidence post-1920 about the extreme dangers of bleach and there's a reason that research into using it as a digestible treatment ceased. There's a reason why it comes with toxic warning labels saying to never ingest. There's a reason why the companies that sell it are warning you not to do this bloody moronic idea.
The frothing at the mouth is ingesting bleach, not advising not to do so.
Who should I believe, you or The President of the United States of America? .. just joking.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Good luck getting the American golfers to travel anywhere during a crisis. And equally good luck getting the US to allow entry of nationals of the other top players from many different countries.
Setting up a tournament is quite do-able but getting a major or wgc field together wont happen in 2020 imo.
Now if only somebody had proposed a tour with just the top few players playing each other every week...call it something like Premier Golf League.
The top 32 players are all multi-millionaires who can travel via private jet and pretty much all live full time in the US. So I don't think that is necessarily an issue. Getting the usual field size though is.
Back in the day, they used to run special one off skins games which matched the top 4 players. I am sure most golf fans wouldn't mind watching a modern equivalent of that.
Another issue which hasn't received enough attention is how the government can phase out the extraordinary economic assistance plans such as the furlough scheme, without provoking the kind of disruption they were trying to avoid in the first place but also without spending megabucks for ages on subsidising jobs which are never going to come back.
I can think of one way they can phase it out.
Reduce it by 20% a week.
Employers will soon have the slothful back at work.
The problem is that different sectors (even the long-term very viable ones) will have very different rates of recovery of activity, and even within a given sector it will be very patchy.
It doesn't sound that difficult - when we open up retail, discontinue the scheme for retail outlets - ok give them a week to get their house in order.
Then manufacturing etc.
Sounds like Beth is grievance mining as usual.
Manufacturing has never been prevented here.
Right - but manufacturers are on furlough. Lets get back to work ASAP with some sensible measures in place.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
The ball. Eventually everyone in the fielding team, excepting the wicketkeeper, will hold the ball and there's normally at least one player in the team who polishes it.
Gloves could be worn, but I'm not sure how you protect the umpires and wicketkeepers. The practice of polishing the ball could be banned. I know this would handicap the Australians, but too bad.
Seriously, there are a number of sports where post-C19 changes might be for the better.
The laws of cricket would need to be changed to allow fielders to wear gloves. If a mach is played which does not conform to the laws then it is not a proper cricket match. How long will it take the MCC to change the laws of cricket?
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
They used lot of weird stuff in the 1920s; most of it (like H2O2) with marginal efficacy. The second paper you cite has zero to do with injecting bleach, but about therapeutic approaches to targeting hydrogen peroxide metabolism... in stroke victims: ...We believe that the therapeutic potential of drugs targeting H2O2 metabolism needs to be explored in depth at a preclinical level in order to transform their theoretical use in brain ischaemia in a true clinical application....
In the mid to late 40's Hydrogen Peroxide was used as a disinfectant wound cleanser for minor skin injuries. Recall being told that the frothing was the cleansing. Quite an encouragement to use it.
It's still used as a topical disinfectant, in mouthwash, and of course to bleach hair (and it's undoubtedly effective in cleaning surfaces). Injecting, not so much.
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
I read that too. Now, it seems a little optimistic - (and even if true, the data appears to show it lasts longer than 70 days) but what is striking from the article is how little we really know about viruses in general and the reason they die out. It's recognised that the coronovirus which causes the common cold dies out in summer, but if the article is accurate, there is no real consensus why, and one theory is rival viruses which attack the virus. I'm not getting my hopes up, but it's interesting nonetheless.
In a similar spirit of straw-clutching, there was a rather speculative article by Janet Daley yesterday in which she advanced the theory that the reason the under 30s don't seem to be getting it nearly so badly is the MMR vaccine. The article was rescued from total insubstantiality by reference to scientists in Cambridge who have proposed the same thing in a paper, albeit one which has not yet been peer reviewed. It would be pretty exciting if this turned out to be true though - relatively easy to vaccinate everyone based on a vaccine which already exists. Should be easy enough to dig a bit deeper though - what have other countries done with MMR? Can we identify any un-MMR'd under 30s - what has happened to them? And so on.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
The ball. Eventually everyone in the fielding team, excepting the wicketkeeper, will hold the ball and there's normally at least one player in the team who polishes it.
Gloves could be worn, but I'm not sure how you protect the umpires and wicketkeepers. The practice of polishing the ball could be banned. I know this would handicap the Australians, but too bad.
Seriously, there are a number of sports where post-C19 changes might be for the better.
The laws of cricket would need to be changed to allow fielders to wear gloves. If a mach is played which does not conform to the laws then it is not a proper cricket match. How long will it take the MCC to change the laws of cricket?
A temporary law change for a particular competition or series could come in after a remote MCC board meeting.
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
But assuming this were true then a full lockdown is great! It minimises the number of deaths in those 70 days and then afterwards we can all go out and have a wonderful Corona free summer
Labour calls for 'public debate' over lifting lockdown
What do they want a people's assembly? Maureen from Margate gets a say in when to lift the lockdown rather than the likes of Professor Witty and Vallance?
Labour calls for 'public debate' over lifting lockdown
What do they want a people's assembly? Maureen from Margate gets a say in when to lift the lockdown rather than the likes of Professor Witty and Vallance?
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Yeah, but nobody wants to watch golf ;-)
No, more seriously, you are absolutely right. Players can easily stand well apart on the tee and greens at all times. Really missing the Masters, for me, it is THE MAJOR, of the year.
Thinking seriously about cricket....isn't the problem with the umpires?
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
The ball. Eventually everyone in the fielding team, excepting the wicketkeeper, will hold the ball and there's normally at least one player in the team who polishes it.
Gloves could be worn, but I'm not sure how you protect the umpires and wicketkeepers. The practice of polishing the ball could be banned. I know this would handicap the Australians, but too bad.
Seriously, there are a number of sports where post-C19 changes might be for the better.
The laws of cricket would need to be changed to allow fielders to wear gloves. If a mach is played which does not conform to the laws then it is not a proper cricket match. How long will it take the MCC to change the laws of cricket?
A temporary law change for a particular competition or series could come in after a remote MCC board meeting.
Do you mean "could" as in theoretically possible, or "could" as in realistic. I'm sceptical that half of those on the MCC board responsible for the Laws of the game even know how to hold a virtual meeting.
Another issue which hasn't received enough attention is how the government can phase out the extraordinary economic assistance plans such as the furlough scheme, without provoking the kind of disruption they were trying to avoid in the first place but also without spending megabucks for ages on subsidising jobs which are never going to come back.
Those points are silly, very silly.
40% of children should not be at school. 40% are eligible but are told to only go to school if they have no alternative. My wife is a key worker but I'm not, so my children are in that 40% (eligible to go to school) because of my wife's job, but are not doing so because I have them at home. Which is what we should do - doesn't mean that we're "scared" or will refuse to take children back to school once the lockdown ends.
My children and I will be quite glad for normality to return when it does, but until then we're going to continue to try to do the right thing. And on her final point why would the messaging change yet? That will only cause confusion while people's patience with lockdown is already starting to fray. The messaging needs to change when the message changes.
My suggestion on "tilting the narrative" would be that they need to have a very clear strategy that they can sell to people. I would suggest that, "you need to come out now so that tens of thousands of you can die at a controlled rate while we resuscitate the economy," is not it.
I think a better message would be, "we've beaten the virus for now - and this is how we keep it beat."
This implies to me a bit longer than most people expect on lockdown, to keep R well below 1 for longer, followed by a more comprehensive testing, contact tracing and quarantine system to stop the exponential spread resuming.
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
But assuming this were true then a full lockdown is great! It minimises the number of deaths in those 70 days and then afterwards we can all go out and have a wonderful Corona free summer
That looks like a Fake News media-twat headline which is not supported by what the Prof may actually have said. I have not read the article.
Does he really think that it will die out entirely in 10 weeks rather than becoming a background virus in the general pool?
I quite like Costa. I'm not going to say it's amazing, on a par with the best independents and smaller chains. But it compares well amongst its peers, and is better than the poorer indies.
There's a lot of snobbery about coffee chains, I have to say, largely from people who don't remember how hard it was to get a reasonable quality coffee before they became widespread in the UK.
I quite like Cafe Nero. It has (to me) less of a corporate feel then most. Certainly compared to Starbucks. You can just about pretend you're in a bespoke little coffee place in one of their joints. Also because of my mobile deal I get a free Flat White at Cafe Nero every Tuesday. Not now, with lockdown, but I used to. Memories.
Labour calls for 'public debate' over lifting lockdown
What do they want a people's assembly? Maureen from Margate gets a say in when to lift the lockdown rather than the likes of Professor Witty and Vallance?
Judge-led inquiry?
Should be completed by, say, March 2021.
Its amazing. The government said we don't want to rush to implement a lockdown as people will tire of it quickly and it might not hold....the politicians and media scream lock us down now, you are killing people.
Now barely 4 weeks into this, all they can talk about is when will the lockdown be lifted, why isn't lifted yet, etc.
Regrettably having one of the world's most stringent lockdowns doesn't seem to be making up for the fact that they didn't introduce social distancing early enough, allowing huge gatherings to take place at the beginning of March.
For example:
"Women workers in Spain are marking International Women's Day with an unprecedented strike targeting gender inequality and sexual discrimination. Unions said 5.3 million women had joined the 24-hour strike, backed by 10 unions and some of Spain's top women politicians. Hundreds of thousands of women have joined street protests across Spain, shouting "if we stop, the world stops"."
8th March. That might explain cases mid or even late March. It doesn't explain cases on 23rd April. Even if they have been incubating it a while all of these have caught this after the lockdown. The same increasingly applies to the UK. We need to identify where the lockdown is failing and do something about it to further reduce R0. At the moment the lockdown is failing too often.
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
I posted that maybe the virus just lasts 4 months and then just goes away about a month ago and was laughed at.
Yet there are still outbreaks in China where they've just closed off another city.
I didn't laugh at you Nerys - I wondered the same thing. Though I should stress out of only the most limited understanding of viruses - some of which, in the past, have just Gone Away.
The thing with countries like China and the USA is that they are so large that you cannot treat them as one single outbreak. It takes the virus ages to get from one side of countries like that to another.
JFC. A single case study (not even a proper case-control study) in /1920/ does not count as "has been shown to work". You are spreading dangerous pseudo-science that can easily kill. Please just stop.
Would you also reject, say, a theory of gravity dating from /1917/ on the grounds of its date? The study is partially controlled, and anyway you can actually do science without controlled and blinded experiments and discover, say, vaccination and penicillin.
Say you have picked some weird looking mushrooms and you feed,one to the dog, which froths at the mouth and dies in convulsions. Do you exercise caution over the remaining mushrooms or do you say yebbut without a second dog which was fed a placebo, with the feeder being blinded as to which dog got what, this tells us absolutely nothing about the mushrooms, which I shall now eat?
I don't set much store by the hydrogen theory, but your rejection of it is the,pseudoscience.
Actually there has been a ton of evidence post-1920 about the extreme dangers of bleach and there's a reason that research into using it as a digestible treatment ceased. There's a reason why it comes with toxic warning labels saying to never ingest. There's a reason why the companies that sell it are warning you not to do this bloody moronic idea.
The frothing at the mouth is ingesting bleach, not advising not to do so.
The frothing at the mouth was a detail in a thought experiment.
Lots of medicines are monstrously toxic unless used exactly as specified.
Labour calls for 'public debate' over lifting lockdown
What do they want a people's assembly? Maureen from Margate gets a say in when to lift the lockdown rather than the likes of Professor Witty and Vallance?
Trump' s Alan Partridge impression has sent the commentariat into such a state, if he does win in November they are going to struggle to find a vocabulary to describe such an event.
And yet the Dems have almost gone out of the way to say to the public “go on, we dare you.”
I doubt whether any event has ever shaken up the dems like Trump's Victory.
They come back with Joe Biden? seriously? that's their guy?
Might not be in Obama's league, but ten times better than Trump. He'll choose competent aides and stop Trumps dangerous policies.
It's perhaps not so bad as it looks. Looking at the source for the Worldometer numbers, it seems that Spain recently began including those tested positive on the basis of antibodies to the virus in addition to those confirmed by PCR. It looks like this has tended to inflate recent figures, with the caveat that my Spanish isn't up to much!
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
Another issue which hasn't received enough attention is how the government can phase out the extraordinary economic assistance plans such as the furlough scheme, without provoking the kind of disruption they were trying to avoid in the first place but also without spending megabucks for ages on subsidising jobs which are never going to come back.
I can think of one way they can phase it out.
Reduce it by 20% a week.
Employers will soon have the slothful back at work.
The problem is that different sectors (even the long-term very viable ones) will have very different rates of recovery of activity, and even within a given sector it will be very patchy.
Assuming most of the lockdown is here for most of the rest of the year I would suggest:
step 1 - those with large claims (say £1m+ claim, or are employing 500+ etc) to have to show that the company would otherwise need to make the employees redundant step 2 - move that down to medium size claims and reduce the furlough amount to 60% and max to £2000. step 3 - make it sector specific, only named sectors get it automatically, outside of that the companies of all sizes have to clearly show how their business has been hit and why the alternative is redundancy.
Maybe step 1 from July, 2 from August, 3 from October.
Labour calls for 'public debate' over lifting lockdown
What do they want a people's assembly? Maureen from Margate gets a say in when to lift the lockdown rather than the likes of Professor Witty and Vallance?
I don't actually think that's unreasonable at all.
I have every confidence in Whitty and Vallance to provide medical advice but lifting the lockdown is NOT a medical decision - it's a political decision informed by medical advice.
Maureen from Margate actually has a great deal to input in terms of appetite for risk and the impact of the lockdown itself on her finances, her children's education and so on.
Listening to experts doesn't mean subcontracting political decisions to them - it means making those decisions having listened carefully to that advice (rather than putting your fingers in your ears if it doesn't accord with what you'd like to hear).
Labour calls for 'public debate' over lifting lockdown
What do they want a people's assembly? Maureen from Margate gets a say in when to lift the lockdown rather than the likes of Professor Witty and Vallance?
Sir Keir said it was "extremely concerning" to see the "disproportionate toll" coronavirus was having on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.
"We cannot afford to treat this as an issue to investigate once the crisis is over. We must address it now."
So going to use incomplete and misleading data to draw conclusions ? Like his list of PPE providers then...Glad he isn't anywhere near the medical trials.
Labour calls for 'public debate' over lifting lockdown
What do they want a people's assembly? Maureen from Margate gets a say in when to lift the lockdown rather than the likes of Professor Witty and Vallance?
I quite like Costa. I'm not going to say it's amazing, on a par with the best independents and smaller chains. But it compares well amongst its peers, and is better than the poorer indies.
There's a lot of snobbery about coffee chains, I have to say, largely from people who don't remember how hard it was to get a reasonable quality coffee before they became widespread in the UK.
I quite like Cafe Nero. It has (to me) less of a corporate feel then most. Certainly compared to Starbucks. You can just about pretend you're in a bespoke little coffee place in one of their joints. Also because of my mobile deal I get a free Flat White at Cafe Nero every Tuesday. Not now, with lockdown, but I used to. Memories.
Neither of them sell a decent coffee. True, they *were* better than previous options.
Workhouses were better then starving to death in a ditch....
Regrettably having one of the world's most stringent lockdowns doesn't seem to be making up for the fact that they didn't introduce social distancing early enough, allowing huge gatherings to take place at the beginning of March.
For example:
"Women workers in Spain are marking International Women's Day with an unprecedented strike targeting gender inequality and sexual discrimination. Unions said 5.3 million women had joined the 24-hour strike, backed by 10 unions and some of Spain's top women politicians. Hundreds of thousands of women have joined street protests across Spain, shouting "if we stop, the world stops"."
Any evidence that street protests by 100s of thousands spread Covid more than 5.3 million going to work that day?
I was in favour of cologne banning its carnival parades, but I never found a single reported case of someone catching coronavirus from the hundreds of thousands of people on the streets
Labour calls for 'public debate' over lifting lockdown
What do they want a people's assembly? Maureen from Margate gets a say in when to lift the lockdown rather than the likes of Professor Witty and Vallance?
Sir Keir said it was "extremely concerning" to see the "disproportionate toll" coronavirus was having on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.
"We cannot afford to treat this as an issue to investigate once the crisis is over. We must address it now."
So going to use incomplete and misleading data to draw conclusions ? Like his list of PPE providers then...Glad he isn't anywhere near the medical trials.
No cricket until at least 1st July. Of all sports that could manage with a testing and no crowds, cricket seems like ideal candidate.
No, golf's the ideal candidate for first sport back.
Unlike tennis and cricket, noone else need touch your balls. Or your cock in the case of badminton.
Good luck getting the American golfers to travel anywhere during a crisis. And equally good luck getting the US to allow entry of nationals of the other top players from many different countries.
Setting up a tournament is quite do-able but getting a major or wgc field together wont happen in 2020 imo.
Now if only somebody had proposed a tour with just the top few players playing each other every week...call it something like Premier Golf League.
The top 32 players are all multi-millionaires who can travel via private jet and pretty much all live full time in the US. So I don't think that is necessarily an issue. Getting the usual field size though is.
I'm not a top 32 player nor a multi-millionaire. However I am capable of getting changed into my gear, driving 1 mile to my local club, changing my shoes in the car park and walking around the course in the open air for three and a bit hours touching nothing but my own golfing equipment before returning directly to the car and going home. The course equipment, local rules and etiquette had pre lockdown already been adapted so that nothing needed to be touched and to incorporate social distancing in full with the clubhouse and bar closed of course.
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
I read that too. Now, it seems a little optimistic - (and even if true, the data appears to show it lasts longer than 70 days) but what is striking from the article is how little we really know about viruses in general and the reason they die out. It's recognised that the coronovirus which causes the common cold dies out in summer, but if the article is accurate, there is no real consensus why, and one theory is rival viruses which attack the virus. I'm not getting my hopes up, but it's interesting nonetheless.
In a similar spirit of straw-clutching, there was a rather speculative article by Janet Daley yesterday in which she advanced the theory that the reason the under 30s don't seem to be getting it nearly so badly is the MMR vaccine. The article was rescued from total insubstantiality by reference to scientists in Cambridge who have proposed the same thing in a paper, albeit one which has not yet been peer reviewed. It would be pretty exciting if this turned out to be true though - relatively easy to vaccinate everyone based on a vaccine which already exists. Should be easy enough to dig a bit deeper though - what have other countries done with MMR? Can we identify any un-MMR'd under 30s - what has happened to them? And so on.
Just think, if it turns out that Wrexham* is a hotspot for Covid in the under 25s maybe we could give Andrew Wakefield a Knighthood!
*Apologies to Wrexham it this was not the place where there was a significan measles outbreak about 10 years ago.
'In 1888, the first medical use of H2O2 was described by Love as efficacious in treating numerous diseases, including scarlet fever, diphtheria, nasal catarrh, acute coryza, whooping cough, asthma hay fever and tonsillitis (Love, 1888). Similarly, Oliver and collaborators reported that intravenous injection of H2O2 was efficacious in treating influenza pneumonia in the epidemic following World War I (Oliver et al., 1920). Despite its beneficial effects, in the 1940s medical interest in further research on H2O2 was slowed down by the emerging development of new prescription medicines.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417441/
One nil to Trump?
No. Its a stupid, dangerous, dumb idea.
Is it more dangerous than letting Covid kill someone?
I'd bow down to doctors like Foxy in that one but I suspect drinking bleach is more dangerous than the risk of Covid to the average person.
You are throwing around the word 'dumb', you could at least read both my post and Trump's comments. There was no mention of 'drinking'.
They managed to go from an 80 percent death rate to a 48 percent death rate - and they were only using subjects who were considered hopeless cases.
You are really trying to defend his comments? He came across as he was either thick, drunk or suffering from dementia. We know he doesn't drink so he doesn't have the Yeltsin excuse. He comes out with some really dumb statements, but it is unlikely that he is thick. How anyone could support excuse or vote for this buffoon astounds me.
I don't know what motivated his comments, and I haven't watched them - I hate cringey moments.
However, it must be said that injecting a disinfectant, in this case hydrogen peroxide, has been written up in the Lancet and actually shown remarkable results for a similar condition!
Trumps words are best understood when this young woman lipsynchs them. Remember, this is the President:
This stuff is great - but the risk is he just becomes more and more embedded as a kind of incredibly amusing popular culture icon. You know, a Guilty Pleasure.
I would rather he was not covered by the media and ignored by everyone else.
In fact, new approach from yours truly. No further comments on Donald Trump except for my periodic reminder - to assist with people's betting - that he will lose in November and it will not be close.
That's exactly how he works.
He's a living, breathing £350m bus - day-in, day-out - with a global profile.
Exactly.
No further comment.
End of exchange.
He's the president of the US. I don't think you signal boosting him- or not- is all that relevant.
No. And I could never keep it up anyway (as it were).
Trump out of office is probably my number one area of interest. If I gag myself on this where does it leave me?
Labour calls for 'public debate' over lifting lockdown
What do they want a people's assembly? Maureen from Margate gets a say in when to lift the lockdown rather than the likes of Professor Witty and Vallance?
This is what strong opposition looks like, apparently: desperately trying to snatch some scrap of relevance while carefully avoiding saying anything with any actual content.
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
I posted that maybe the virus just lasts 4 months and then just goes away about a month ago and was laughed at.
The Corona Virus is not a student on a gap year!
No but it is very odd
It's like any other virus. It will only stop once it has no more hosts to infect. At the moment it is being limited by social distancing, but if things return to normal it would flare up again until a good chunk of the population has been infected. Even in downtown New York where they have been hit hardest, only 20% have had it.
Comments
And presumably no fielder, including the wicketkeeper, would be allowed too close to the batsman?
They could run this 100 competition like that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110577/Nurse-Kimberly-Saenz-killed-dialysis-patients-injecting-IV-lines-bleach-starts-trial-today.html
Not sure of your circumstances but for normal people that is just ridiculous.
More seriously though, most uni halls these days are en-suite and perfectly pleasant, and normally divided into small flat type units each with their own kitchen / living area. TV, internet, your own en-suite room, that seems perfectly reasonable.
Possible explanations are that (a) Denmark is much more densely populated than Sweden, and (b) Norway has a more conservative government than Sweden which therefore may be more risk-averse.
Bowls, and derivations thereof
Darts (already being done remotely)
Motor racing
Now single parents, yes I can see the issue. That would need some thinking about.
It's from a blog; 'A couple in government-enforced quarantine at an Auckland airport hotel are documenting their experience of luxury lockdown – and causing envy worldwide with images of waffles delivered to the door, mini-fridges stocked full of cake, and escorted walks under stormy New Zealand skies.'
Is there any actual evidence that they did this, versus staying at home? And how many of them live in the mid-West, Arizona or Florida?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Trellick_Tower_front_view.jpg
We actually really really don't want infected people going back to blocks of flats like that. Very easy to infect the whole place as you go touching the buttons in the lift, go down the stairs to take the rubbish out, etc.
This is exactly what they did in China. Present at fever clinic, you don't leave their care unless you are negative or have been through the virus.
1) Live alone? Your personal assigned previously-infected chauffeur will take you home to pack then drive you on to the Quarantine Manor Hotel and Golf Course
2) Live with family? Call them on the way and get them to pack your bags, your driver will deliver them later
For example:
"Women workers in Spain are marking International Women's Day with an unprecedented strike targeting gender inequality and sexual discrimination.
Unions said 5.3 million women had joined the 24-hour strike, backed by 10 unions and some of Spain's top women politicians.
Hundreds of thousands of women have joined street protests across Spain, shouting "if we stop, the world stops"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43324406
But (a) we see the penicillin work with hindsight - we forget (collectively) about the experiments/anecdotal work that didn't work
(b) the Lancet paper effectively remains anecdotal - it would not be acceptable to publish such work today as actually showing an effect, bewcause of the small sample size, placebo effect, unconscious selection of patient, etc. etc.
(c) it's the way in which H202 is being pushed as if it has already passed the clinical trials you suggest that is the concern today.
It's actually an interesting notion, whether a systemic poison such as H202 could have such a specificv effect on viral pneumonia - and wehther it is the oxygen pure and simple, or some specific oxidation reaction with the virus. But peroxides are highly toxic - that's why we have vitamin C intake to act as antioxidants. It all reminds me a bit of the old notion that it was the acidity in fruit that killed scurvy, so the poor matelots got to drink diluted oil of vitriol.
Indeed, if James Lind could run a controlled trial for lemon juice and iirc oil of vitriol as alternative treatments for scurvy, it's a shame that the 1920 chaps didn't do that for their peroxide worek. For all I know it was all the pushing and pulling during the injection that did the trick ...
The "peroxide enthusiasts" on here might believe that they are "just asking questions", but what they’re actually doing is running support for the charlatans and quacks who fraudulently push their woo therapies on the desperate, whether intentionally or not.
We /have/ ways of directly oxygenating the blood; injecting H2O2 is not one that modern medicine chooses to use for good reasons. Since this appears to be the only justification for using it put forward in that 1920 paper, there seems to be no justification for using H2O2 in this fashion to treat Covid-19. Any proposed experiment to test it would fail to pass ethical scrutiny due to this obvious problem.
Instead if you isolate the infected person away from home. Test the other member of the household, if they are negative, great they can carry on as normal.
The second paper you cite has zero to do with injecting bleach, but about therapeutic approaches to targeting hydrogen peroxide metabolism... in stroke victims:
...We believe that the therapeutic potential of drugs targeting H2O2 metabolism needs to be explored in depth at a preclinical level in order to transform their theoretical use in brain ischaemia in a true clinical application....
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Not much wind power being generated today. But 24% of our needs being met by solar! (caveat - there is not a little guesswork in calculating the figure for solar). Also, no coal at all. Demand is down around one quarter to one third from normal.
"Coronavirus dies out within 70 days no matter how we tackle it, claims professor
Prof Isaac Ben-Israel claims that his analysis shows that the virus is self-limiting and peaks at 40 days before entering a rapid decline" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/23/coronavirus-dies-within-70-days-no-matter-tackle-claims-professor/
What about both parents of a large or even small family?
What about...
Seriously, there are a number of sports where post-C19 changes might be for the better.
https://www.mscbs.gob.es/en/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov-China/documentos/Actualizacion_85_COVID-19.pdf
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1253642235834441728
Another issue which hasn't received enough attention is how the government can phase out the extraordinary economic assistance plans such as the furlough scheme, without provoking the kind of disruption they were trying to avoid in the first place but also without spending megabucks for ages on subsidising jobs which are never going to come back.
Given that the link below suggests that outdoor transmission is unlikely/hard this shouldn't be much of a problem.
Get sport on - get anything on - raise the lockdown !
Yet people living in close proximity do not seem to inevitably get it.
This leads people to talk of massive asymptomatic infection rates. But then subsequent tests, apparently, don't show this.
There is something missing here, I think.
Perhaps scaling up home delivery of food for quarantine households, would be a better approach then yanking individuals into hotels. I hope the government will come up with something that will be more effective than what we had before the lockdown.
He urged ministers to use quality of life measures balanced against death toll
Would allow UK to gradually lift lockdown whil ekeeping most vulnerable safe
London School of Economics Team analysed pros and cons of lockdown"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8253165/Former-civil-servant-Gus-ODonnell-urges-ministers-use-wellbeing-analysis-ease-lockdown.html
Reduce it by 20% a week.
Employers will soon have the slothful back at work.
The frothing at the mouth is ingesting bleach, not advising not to do so.
At the moment, we don't really know for certain, is receiving parcels have any probability at all, what about passing bits of paper, or every day items to one another.
Or is this idea of viral load correct and all but spending x minutes in an enclosed space fairly close in somebodies presence under particular conditions really the only high probability way you get it.
It is clear from the likes of Witty's responses to questions about that, they don't know.
PS. In case this sounds like people advocating this are just pulling impractical ideas out of our arses, Japan is *already* quarantining infectious people in hotels. (I admit they may not yet have implemented the previously-infected-person chauffeur part.)
I'm not getting my hopes up, but it's interesting nonetheless.
In a similar spirit of straw-clutching, there was a rather speculative article by Janet Daley yesterday in which she advanced the theory that the reason the under 30s don't seem to be getting it nearly so badly is the MMR vaccine. The article was rescued from total insubstantiality by reference to scientists in Cambridge who have proposed the same thing in a paper, albeit one which has not yet been peer reviewed. It would be pretty exciting if this turned out to be true though - relatively easy to vaccinate everyone based on a vaccine which already exists. Should be easy enough to dig a bit deeper though - what have other countries done with MMR? Can we identify any un-MMR'd under 30s - what has happened to them? And so on.
Setting up a tournament is quite do-able but getting a major or wgc field together wont happen in 2020 imo.
Then manufacturing etc.
Sounds like Beth is grievance mining as usual.
.. just joking.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/51534068
The top 32 players are all multi-millionaires who can travel via private jet and pretty much all live full time in the US. So I don't think that is necessarily an issue. Getting the usual field size though is.
Back in the day, they used to run special one off skins games which matched the top 4 players. I am sure most golf fans wouldn't mind watching a modern equivalent of that.
Injecting, not so much.
I don't blieve it.
But assuming this were true then a full lockdown is great! It minimises the number of deaths in those 70 days and then afterwards we can all go out and have a wonderful Corona free summer
What do they want a people's assembly? Maureen from Margate gets a say in when to lift the lockdown rather than the likes of Professor Witty and Vallance?
Should be completed by, say, March 2021.
40% of children should not be at school. 40% are eligible but are told to only go to school if they have no alternative. My wife is a key worker but I'm not, so my children are in that 40% (eligible to go to school) because of my wife's job, but are not doing so because I have them at home. Which is what we should do - doesn't mean that we're "scared" or will refuse to take children back to school once the lockdown ends.
My children and I will be quite glad for normality to return when it does, but until then we're going to continue to try to do the right thing. And on her final point why would the messaging change yet? That will only cause confusion while people's patience with lockdown is already starting to fray. The messaging needs to change when the message changes.
I think a better message would be, "we've beaten the virus for now - and this is how we keep it beat."
This implies to me a bit longer than most people expect on lockdown, to keep R well below 1 for longer, followed by a more comprehensive testing, contact tracing and quarantine system to stop the exponential spread resuming.
Does he really think that it will die out entirely in 10 weeks rather than becoming a background virus in the general pool?
I think not.
Now barely 4 weeks into this, all they can talk about is when will the lockdown be lifted, why isn't lifted yet, etc.
The thing with countries like China and the USA is that they are so large that you cannot treat them as one single outbreak. It takes the virus ages to get from one side of countries like that to another.
Lots of medicines are monstrously toxic unless used exactly as specified.
He'll choose competent aides and stop Trumps dangerous policies.
step 1 - those with large claims (say £1m+ claim, or are employing 500+ etc) to have to show that the company would otherwise need to make the employees redundant
step 2 - move that down to medium size claims and reduce the furlough amount to 60% and max to £2000.
step 3 - make it sector specific, only named sectors get it automatically, outside of that the companies of all sizes have to clearly show how their business has been hit and why the alternative is redundancy.
Maybe step 1 from July, 2 from August, 3 from October.
I have every confidence in Whitty and Vallance to provide medical advice but lifting the lockdown is NOT a medical decision - it's a political decision informed by medical advice.
Maureen from Margate actually has a great deal to input in terms of appetite for risk and the impact of the lockdown itself on her finances, her children's education and so on.
Listening to experts doesn't mean subcontracting political decisions to them - it means making those decisions having listened carefully to that advice (rather than putting your fingers in your ears if it doesn't accord with what you'd like to hear).
"We cannot afford to treat this as an issue to investigate once the crisis is over. We must address it now."
So going to use incomplete and misleading data to draw conclusions ? Like his list of PPE providers then...Glad he isn't anywhere near the medical trials.
Workhouses were better then starving to death in a ditch....
The world has moved on.
I was in favour of cologne banning its carnival parades, but I never found a single reported case of someone catching coronavirus from the hundreds of thousands of people on the streets
*Apologies to Wrexham it this was not the place where there was a significan measles outbreak about 10 years ago.
Trump out of office is probably my number one area of interest. If I gag myself on this where does it leave me?