Yes, we're heading for very bad times economically that will have a far greater impact on most people than the virus. That's not to say I am against the action taken to combat the virus. It's just the reality of the situation.
Government know this, their advisers know this, and why you get Hancock eye rolling when they get questions like but my parents garden backs onto the park, what's the difference between me sitting in the park and in my parents garden.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Expecting life to be 100% safe is ridiculous.
It is, but that is the mindset of most people. Go on Facebook and see parents reaction to the thought of sending the rugrats back to school. They are shit scared for the tiny tots, when the science says they are at near zero risk.
Hence Whitty was ramming home the message last night that the virus is only very dangerous for a minority.
Expect to see this message repeated over the next week.
The tide of opinion is already turning from Sunday - soon everyone will be adapting to the next phase.
Biggest push to restart school will be kids - mine would go back tomorrow - and I'd let them - hellish to keep them in solitary confinement.
I doubt many primary school kids want to be at home all this time - and anyone who thinks its a good idea to stay at home until September hasn't thought about anyone's mental health.
There will be some health risks for going back before the summer holiday. There will be major mental health risks for not doing so. The summer holiday is long enough that people joke how great it is for the schools to be reopening after it in normal circumstances - to last until then is going to be immensely challenging on everyone otherwise.
If the puritans have their way, places like nightclubs will never open again. "Too risky". "Not safe".
Not never but too long for any sort of furlough scheme. Nightclubs open, a huge infection spike occurs, the risk level goes up and the Gov't has to shut down clothing retailers again ?! Not a very good scenario.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Expecting life to be 100% safe is ridiculous.
It is, but that is the mindset of most people. Go on Facebook and see parents reaction to the thought of sending the rugrats back to school. They are shit scared for the tiny tots, when the science says they are at near zero risk.
Hence Whitty was ramming home the message last night that the virus is only very dangerous for a minority.
Expect to see this message repeated over the next week.
The tide of opinion is already turning from Sunday - soon everyone will be adapting to the next phase.
Biggest push to restart school will be kids - mine would go back tomorrow - and I'd let them - hellish to keep them in solitary confinement.
I don't think there is enough consideration being given to the potentially disastrous impact for some kids of having their education disrupted. Some, in supportive middle-class homes with access to laptops etc - will be OK. Many others will simply never properly get back into the routine. Life prospects severely compromised....
I remember the guys behind KIPS programme in the US talking about the disparity caused by even the summer vacations between middle class and working class kids. Basically there was research done that tested kids pre and post holidays and the poorer kids who attained the same level pre, were way behind post.
The hypothesis was that richer more educated families obviously took time off to be with their kids, spent the holidays continuing education, activities to reinforce learning, preparing to go back, etc etc etc.
If the puritans have their way, places like nightclubs will never open again. "Too risky". "Not safe".
Not never but too long for any sort of furlough scheme. Nightclubs open, a huge infection spike occurs, the risk level goes up and the Gov't has to shut down clothing retailers again ?! Not a very good scenario.
Not if you only allow people with immunity bands in. In London that's going to be a pretty big number. Probably in Birmingham and Manchester too.
Lots of chat on the ex-colleagues WhatsApp group this morning after one school sent parents a detailed takedown of the new guidelines. The key point being that it is Unsafe to see your grandkids or nephews but Safe to have 15 kids from 15 households in your care. Unsafe to see your parents unless they employ you as their cleaner when its Safe.
OK, I am definitely not an apologist for this god-awful government, or the clown that claims its leadership, BUT, there is a "takedown" of this takedown, and it is that while pure logic says, yes these things when compared in isolation look illogical, but when taken as a population as a whole, such discrepancies will reduce the amount of social interaction and therefore the overall transmission rate. We can accept that children being properly schooled is in most cases most likely a greater importance than their individual teacher being able to visit their immediate family. Health workers have already been forced to make a similar calculation. It is all going to have to be a trade off.
Given the volume of different human relationships, coming up with rule set under a million pages that would cover every situation without making a ridiculous ruling... well, I think that would be impossible.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Expecting life to be 100% safe is ridiculous.
It is, but that is the mindset of most people. Go on Facebook and see parents reaction to the thought of sending the rugrats back to school. They are shit scared for the tiny tots, when the science says they are at near zero risk.
Hence Whitty was ramming home the message last night that the virus is only very dangerous for a minority.
Expect to see this message repeated over the next week.
The tide of opinion is already turning from Sunday - soon everyone will be adapting to the next phase.
Biggest push to restart school will be kids - mine would go back tomorrow - and I'd let them - hellish to keep them in solitary confinement.
I don't think there is enough consideration being given to the potentially disastrous impact for some kids of having their education disrupted. Some, in supportive middle-class homes with access to laptops etc - will be OK. Many others will simply never properly get back into the routine. Life prospects severely compromised.
Very easy for some politicians to go for a "safety first" approach and lock down everything and then criticise others for introducing measures which relax the lockdown (which, inevitably, leads to the potential for grey areas, compared to the black and white of "Stay at Home").
While I initially thought Sturgeon was behaving responsibly, unfortunately she is now being opportunistic in being so critical. Easy for her just to sit up here and do nothing and let someone else pioneer the moves needed to get the country on the road again.
I made this point yesterday. Scottish kids going back to school in August will have been out of education for 5 months. For many, whose engagement levels were tenuous at best, that will be fatal to their further education. I would like to see kids get a few weeks before the summer break. Even if they don't learn much they will get the social interaction, the routine of schooling, the discipline of sitting in class for 40 minutes at a time. Without that I fear that many will suffer permanent damage. And the more disadvantaged their background the bigger the problem.
The situation in Singapore is interesting. They've been reporting more than 500 new cases every day since April 16th (with two exceptions) and yet there has been no consequent increase in deaths.
Is it because this wave of infection is limited to migrant workers who are all young?
Probably partly that, and partly because the number of infections is still rising rapidly. Deaths have been rising too, but the apparently fatality rate is still only about 0.1%. Once the number of infections starts to drop, no doubt the apparent fatality rate will rise.
hi Chris
I asked you this above but you were obviously too busy to read it. You seem like a man who knows his infection rates. What was the R value of SARS and MERS.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that the government’s new strategy is to blame individuals if they fall ill and businesses if they close down.
In fairness, that would be part of any government’s strategy at some point.
If so, let’s cut the crap, abandon all this social distancing advice and let people make their own decisions about how to live and operate. Pretending that things can be made “safe” and that there will be a time when closed businesses can reopen using the new guidance is a cruel deception.
I really don't think that people are deceived. There is a virus. It is dangerous. Contact with others or with things others have touched creates risk. Be aware of that and act appropriately. But do not let yourself be paralysed into not living or earning.
God Almighty! I am not being paralysed into not earning. Nor is my daughter. We are legally prevented from doing so. She would like nothing better than being able to go out and work. She is desperate to do so. But she can’t. She can’t assess the risk or take appropriate actions. She is being fed a lie that she may be able to reopen when she won’t be. And the government will not then help her. It will blame her. It is already calling her an “addict” for being on furlough. It is planning to make her poorer. It has nothing to say about what happens when she and many others like her will be unemployed and have no alternatives.
Yep, life is not good for many people and it will eventually feed through to everyone else. But that shouldn't stop people working where it is available and safe to do so.
The point I am trying to make is that life is being made worse for many people by the government’s actions in response to this. And the government should not wash its hands of responsibility for that. Though I fear that it will.
Don't worry, the government will get round to that, but they have other priorities right now. I suspect that nice Mr Sunak will become public enemy number 1 in a month's time. The unpalatable truth will be that most businesses built around face to face interaction are done for the foreseeable future.
And the point I am making is that businesses built around face to face interaction are far more than a few small cafes/pubs/restaurants etc.
It’s whole sectors: entertainment of all kinds, the arts, heritage, all sorts of personal therapeutic, beauty and teaching services, tourism, eating and drinking out, socialising, sport, every kind of group activity etc.
That is an enormous part of our economic and social life gone.
Yes, we're heading for very bad times economically that will have a far greater impact on most people than the virus. That's not to say I am against the action taken to combat the virus. It's just the reality of the situation.
Not just economically but socially. Man is a social animal. I don’t know about you but I don’t want to live a life apart from my fellow human beings.
If it was short-term and it helped the most vulnerable it would be endurable. But it doesn't look as if it will be and, pace my header, it doesn’t even seem to be much helping the most vulnerable.
So maybe we need to think the unthinkable......? I dunno really.
The other thing with the immunity certification is that 30% of immune Londoners is that it will be something more like 50% of London pubgoers.
30% is a huge, and quite possibly unwarranted assumption.
It was 10% a few weeks ago according to the TV geek yesterday. By the end of the first wave it should be close to 30% which will be disproportionately among younger people.
The other thing with the immunity certification is that 30% of immune Londoners is that it will be something more like 50% of London pubgoers.
30% is a huge, and quite possibly unwarranted assumption.
It was 10% a few weeks ago according to the TV geek yesterday. By the end of the first wave it should be close to 30% which will be disproportionately among younger people.
Lots of chat on the ex-colleagues WhatsApp group this morning after one school sent parents a detailed takedown of the new guidelines. The key point being that it is Unsafe to see your grandkids or nephews but Safe to have 15 kids from 15 households in your care. Unsafe to see your parents unless they employ you as their cleaner when its Safe.
Teachers happy to stay on full wages without working, while supermarket workers and numerous other professions take the risks for them.
The ONS figures yesterday showed the risks by occupations. It's no surprise that education workers were lower than average.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
Social care is a mess because we value the right to pass and receive a large tax-free inheritance above the responsibility to provide dignity for all in old age. This is the choice we have made. Little point moaning about it if we are not prepared to make a different value judgment.
I am going to bite.
It was the party you supported which made a big hoo ha about people having to use their homes and savings to pay for their care, which was outraged at the idea that children might have to foregoing their large inheritances in order to pay for Mum’s care. This was the value judgment made by the party which likes to proclaim that it cares about the vulnerable.
Well I personally thought the Dementia Tax was a good policy. As was Andy Burnham's Death Tax a few years prior. But both got trashed by political opportunism from the other side. Opportunism that succeeded because - as I say - it is in line with the value judgment the public have made. That sorting out social care is less important than the right to pass and receive a chunky inheritance free of tax.
So did I. But you cannot deny that your Labour Party did much to trash the dementia tax - out of political opportunism. Where were its supposed values then?
No, that's a fair cop. And the Tories did the same to Labour's effort. Indeed George Osborne scared Brown out of a GE with a flamboyant promise to exempt estates of £1m from IHT. The public LOVED that. What they love rather less is the prospect of coughing up to fund dignity in old age for all. Which is why I don't blame political parties for this. It's way too easy to do that. The parties are simply reflecting the public's priorities. If the public don't care enough about social care to fund it properly, it will not be funded properly. This is democracy in a situation of limited resources. Which, since resources are always limited, is the same as saying this is democracy.
The other thing with the immunity certification is that 30% of immune Londoners is that it will be something more like 50% of London pubgoers.
30% is a huge, and quite possibly unwarranted assumption.
It was 10% a few weeks ago according to the TV geek yesterday. By the end of the first wave it should be close to 30% which will be disproportionately among younger people.
If the puritans have their way, places like nightclubs will never open again. "Too risky". "Not safe".
Not never but too long for any sort of furlough scheme. Nightclubs open, a huge infection spike occurs, the risk level goes up and the Gov't has to shut down clothing retailers again ?! Not a very good scenario.
So you close nightclubs forever. Cinemas? Theatres? Comedy clubs? Cafes? Museums? Galleries? Concert halls? Music venues?
The other thing with the immunity certification is that 30% of immune Londoners is that it will be something more like 50% of London pubgoers.
Do we think London is anywhere near 30% though? Witty said 10% last night, and although that is lagging, I doubt it is anywhere near 3x that.
By the time pubs are looking to reopen I don't think 30% will be outside of the realms of possibility.
We have had this thing for 4 months now. It was clearly wild and widespread in London before the lockdown, and yet we have only got to 10%. I don't see how we get to 3x that in a month or two.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
The traffic light thing is fatuous.
What are you talking about?
There's great detail in the guidance about controlling the virus as the lockdown is eased. Are you serious and did you miss it all? Do you need it explaining or are you trying to be fatuous?
Social care is a mess because we value the right to pass and receive a large tax-free inheritance above the responsibility to provide dignity for all in old age. This is the choice we have made. Little point moaning about it if we are not prepared to make a different value judgment.
I am going to bite.
It was the party you supported which made a big hoo ha about people having to use their homes and savings to pay for their care, which was outraged at the idea that children might have to foregoing their large inheritances in order to pay for Mum’s care. This was the value judgment made by the party which likes to proclaim that it cares about the vulnerable.
Well I personally thought the Dementia Tax was a good policy. As was Andy Burnham's Death Tax a few years prior. But both got trashed by political opportunism from the other side. Opportunism that succeeded because - as I say - it is in line with the value judgment the public have made. That sorting out social care is less important than the right to pass and receive a chunky inheritance free of tax.
Is it the right to receive an inheritance that drives this, or worrying that those who have saved for their old age get ripped off when compared to those who have spent all their money instead?
A wealth tax has the same problem. If you target savings you are punishing some people for being prudent.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Expecting life to be 100% safe is ridiculous.
It is, but that is the mindset of most people. Go on Facebook and see parents reaction to the thought of sending the rugrats back to school. They are shit scared for the tiny tots, when the science says they are at near zero risk.
Hence Whitty was ramming home the message last night that the virus is only very dangerous for a minority.
Expect to see this message repeated over the next week.
The tide of opinion is already turning from Sunday - soon everyone will be adapting to the next phase.
Biggest push to restart school will be kids - mine would go back tomorrow - and I'd let them - hellish to keep them in solitary confinement.
I don't think there is enough consideration being given to the potentially disastrous impact for some kids of having their education disrupted. Some, in supportive middle-class homes with access to laptops etc - will be OK. Many others will simply never properly get back into the routine. Life prospects severely compromised.
Very easy for some politicians to go for a "safety first" approach and lock down everything and then criticise others for introducing measures which relax the lockdown (which, inevitably, leads to the potential for grey areas, compared to the black and white of "Stay at Home").
While I initially thought Sturgeon was behaving responsibly, unfortunately she is now being opportunistic in being so critical. Easy for her just to sit up here and do nothing and let someone else pioneer the moves needed to get the country on the road again.
I made this point yesterday. Scottish kids going back to school in August will have been out of education for 5 months. For many, whose engagement levels were tenuous at best, that will be fatal to their further education. I would like to see kids get a few weeks before the summer break. Even if they don't learn much they will get the social interaction, the routine of schooling, the discipline of sitting in class for 40 minutes at a time. Without that I fear that many will suffer permanent damage. And the more disadvantaged their background the bigger the problem.
Schools are going to be dealing with a whole heap of problems for many years to come as a result of this. The government is going to have to recognise that and provide the appropriate resources - more learning support, but also a lot more focus on mental ill-health detection and treatment. These areboth areas that have suffered significant cutbacks over recent years.
Imagine being a kid cooped up in a house where the parents do not get along. It is going to be immensely damaging.
The situation in Singapore is interesting. They've been reporting more than 500 new cases every day since April 16th (with two exceptions) and yet there has been no consequent increase in deaths.
Is it because this wave of infection is limited to migrant workers who are all young?
Probably partly that, and partly because the number of infections is still rising rapidly. Deaths have been rising too, but the apparently fatality rate is still only about 0.1%. Once the number of infections starts to drop, no doubt the apparent fatality rate will rise.
hi Chris
I asked you this above but you were obviously too busy to read it. You seem like a man who knows his infection rates. What was the R value of SARS and MERS.
TIA
I think that would be very hard to answer given the relatively small number of cases. Because viral shedding didn't happen before infection was obvious, intervention to rapidly lower R, and kill of the outbreak completely, was relatively simple. So we never really got very much data on how quickly the virus would spread if left completely uncontrolled.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
The virus will either mutate out (Likely to something less harmful) or we'll find a vaccine if it doesn't. We won't live this way forever but we might for a couple of years.
I don't think the media or the public fully appreciate that the above is the most likely best case scenario. I think most people think if they just hide away for another month, then things will be safe again. I am not sure how useful the hyping up of the Oxford vaccine is, in relation to getting people back out of their homes.
We have become so accustomed to our every day lives being incredibly safe. Lots of H&S rules and regs at work, violent crime against random members of the public is by historic standards very low, etc.
The new reality is that every day there will be an increased element of risk. Now for most under 40s that risk is tiny, but the government can't honestly with hand on heart say we can make this 100% safe in the way you can basically can when it comes to best practice when operating a piece of machinery in a prescribed way.
People have been conditioned to governments saying they can, and on the odd occasion there is a failure, it is normally because a flaw in the rules which can be fixed or not obeying them.
The government can't really say it, but people have to go out again but it will be riskier and there is only a limited amount anybody can do.
Expecting life to be 100% safe is ridiculous.
It is, but that is the mindset of most people. Go on Facebook and see parents reaction to the thought of sending the rugrats back to school. They are shit scared for the tiny tots, when the science says they are at near zero risk.
Hence Whitty was ramming home the message last night that the virus is only very dangerous for a minority.
Expect to see this message repeated over the next week.
The tide of opinion is already turning from Sunday - soon everyone will be adapting to the next phase.
Biggest push to restart school will be kids - mine would go back tomorrow - and I'd let them - hellish to keep them in solitary confinement.
I don't think there is enough consideration being given to the potentially disastrous impact for some kids of having their education disrupted. Some, in supportive middle-class homes with access to laptops etc - will be OK. Many others will simply never properly get back into the routine. Life prospects severely compromised.
Very easy for some politicians to go for a "safety first" approach and lock down everything and then criticise others for introducing measures which relax the lockdown (which, inevitably, leads to the potential for grey areas, compared to the black and white of "Stay at Home").
While I initially thought Sturgeon was behaving responsibly, unfortunately she is now being opportunistic in being so critical. Easy for her just to sit up here and do nothing and let someone else pioneer the moves needed to get the country on the road again.
I made this point yesterday. Scottish kids going back to school in August will have been out of education for 5 months. For many, whose engagement levels were tenuous at best, that will be fatal to their further education. I would like to see kids get a few weeks before the summer break. Even if they don't learn much they will get the social interaction, the routine of schooling, the discipline of sitting in class for 40 minutes at a time. Without that I fear that many will suffer permanent damage. And the more disadvantaged their background the bigger the problem.
The SNP record on education has been truly catastrophic across the board. Given that Sturgeon and Swinney are pretty smart operators I really can't understand how they have messed it up so much. I think this is why it is very unlikely they will seek to delay next year's election. If it is rolled into 2022 public attention will likely re-focus on their record. Much better to fight an election on the back of coronavirus and Sturgeon's much improved personal ratings.
If the puritans have their way, places like nightclubs will never open again. "Too risky". "Not safe".
Not never but too long for any sort of furlough scheme. Nightclubs open, a huge infection spike occurs, the risk level goes up and the Gov't has to shut down clothing retailers again ?! Not a very good scenario.
So you close nightclubs forever. Cinemas? Theatres? Comedy clubs? Cafes? Museums? Galleries? Concert halls? Music venues?
What sort of scenario is that?
Potentially its the scenario we face for a year or two until a vaccine is developed.
Its a horrible scenario but it may be where we are whether we like it or not.
If the puritans have their way, places like nightclubs will never open again. "Too risky". "Not safe".
Not never but too long for any sort of furlough scheme. Nightclubs open, a huge infection spike occurs, the risk level goes up and the Gov't has to shut down clothing retailers again ?! Not a very good scenario.
So you close nightclubs forever. Cinemas? Theatres? Comedy clubs? Cafes? Museums? Galleries? Concert halls? Music venues?
What sort of scenario is that?
The one we're facing.
the problem is not opening them, it's opening them, and ensuring they can be economically viable to open.
The situation in Singapore is interesting. They've been reporting more than 500 new cases every day since April 16th (with two exceptions) and yet there has been no consequent increase in deaths.
Is it because this wave of infection is limited to migrant workers who are all young?
Probably partly that, and partly because the number of infections is still rising rapidly. Deaths have been rising too, but the apparently fatality rate is still only about 0.1%. Once the number of infections starts to drop, no doubt the apparent fatality rate will rise.
hi Chris
I asked you this above but you were obviously too busy to read it. You seem like a man who knows his infection rates. What was the R value of SARS and MERS.
TIA
I think that would be very hard to answer given the relatively small number of cases. Because viral shedding didn't happen before infection was obvious, intervention to rapidly lower R, and kill of the outbreak completely, was relatively simple. So we never really got very much data on how quickly the virus would spread if left completely uncontrolled.
If the puritans have their way, places like nightclubs will never open again. "Too risky". "Not safe".
Not never but too long for any sort of furlough scheme. Nightclubs open, a huge infection spike occurs, the risk level goes up and the Gov't has to shut down clothing retailers again ?! Not a very good scenario.
So you close nightclubs forever. Cinemas? Theatres? Comedy clubs? Cafes? Museums? Galleries? Concert halls? Music venues?
What sort of scenario is that?
No, I specifically picked nightclubs because they are out on their own as a potential viral reservoir/infection spreader. The last museum I went to was very different to the last nightclub I went to. They should be kept closed longer in my opinion on any "lifting", perhaps too long for them to survive. Other businesses you've mentioned are in the middle, the Gov't will have some choices to make there.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
Is the government really going to cut the money paid to those employees legally forbidden from going back to work?
I gather Sunak will be talking about this later today. He has a fine balance to strike. Needs to cut furlough to incentivize work but maintain support to prevent public and political grief. If I were him I'd err on the side of fiscal laxity right now. When you're in a hole you might as well keep digging a little longer - that's what they say, isn't it?
Cut furlough to incentivise work? Furloughs are subsidies paid to employers, not employees, to keep them in business and to prevent mass unemployment. An employee cannot turn up for work this morning if the doors are still locked and the production line stopped. Cut furlough to incentivise reopening, perhaps.
The situation in Singapore is interesting. They've been reporting more than 500 new cases every day since April 16th (with two exceptions) and yet there has been no consequent increase in deaths.
Is it because this wave of infection is limited to migrant workers who are all young?
Probably partly that, and partly because the number of infections is still rising rapidly. Deaths have been rising too, but the apparently fatality rate is still only about 0.1%. Once the number of infections starts to drop, no doubt the apparent fatality rate will rise.
hi Chris
I asked you this above but you were obviously too busy to read it. You seem like a man who knows his infection rates. What was the R value of SARS and MERS.
TIA
I think that would be very hard to answer given the relatively small number of cases. Because viral shedding didn't happen before infection was obvious, intervention to rapidly lower R, and kill of the outbreak completely, was relatively simple. So we never really got very much data on how quickly the virus would spread if left completely uncontrolled.
If the puritans have their way, places like nightclubs will never open again. "Too risky". "Not safe".
Not never but too long for any sort of furlough scheme. Nightclubs open, a huge infection spike occurs, the risk level goes up and the Gov't has to shut down clothing retailers again ?! Not a very good scenario.
So you close nightclubs forever. Cinemas? Theatres? Comedy clubs? Cafes? Museums? Galleries? Concert halls? Music venues?
What sort of scenario is that?
Potentially its the scenario we face for a year or two until a vaccine is developed.
Its a horrible scenario but it may be where we are whether we like it or not.
I will happily take the risk and do stuff for all those too frightened to put their heads out the door. My charges will be modestly steep but affordable
Yes - it is a very nasty bug, but it is not Ebola, Smallpox or Typhoid. A hundred years ago our ancestors all lived with far worse bugs.
Anyway, not much change around this place - Boris's supporters kissing his a*se whilst outside this forum everyone treats Boris and his Sunday Pronouncement as beyond a joke. Do not think that the general public did not spot Boris's abdication of leadership. They did.
I find the idea that people have been putting off seeking medical help genuinely baffling. I have recently needed medical help, and as it turned out an early diagnosis was very important. The Corona situation played no role in my decision to seek medical help or not. Although I am in Germany, I don't thiink I would have done anything differently had I been in the UK and I am horrified by the idea that I would delay getting a diagnosis because of not wanting to get in the way of medical staff.
I should have also mentioned that care home workers are dying at twice the rate of NHS workers. It is a scandal. Some of the people doing the most valuable work, poorly paid and little valued are being denied the PPE they need and are dying because of this. They are also a vector for retransmission into the wider community.
The whole purpose of lockdown was to protect the vulnerable. If we can’t even do that, really what is the point of it all?
If anything positive comes out of this it may be that people think twice about sending Mum off to a care home where greedy owners and (some) negligent staff are paid to see her through her dying days
What on Earth are you talking about?
I'm talking about more elderly people being cared for at home rather than being abandoned
Interesting approach - blame the families.
I seem to remember someone with similar viewpoints disappeared off this site last week.
As we said then dealing with dementia is something that requires trained people who are detached from the family - otherwise it's beyond painful.
Unfortunately TGOHF is still with us - his view was that families put relatives into care homes because they smell a bit and interfere with their holiday plans.
To be fair, there are some horrible people out there. Who would do exactly that.
There are also many, many people living in a sleep deprived hell, caring for someone who is literally fighting them.
If such people do exist I doubt there are many of them and they don't sound like the type of people who would willingly give up £5000 a month of their inheritance to pay for it. In any event the holiday issue is easily resolved with the use of respite care.
The situation in Singapore is interesting. They've been reporting more than 500 new cases every day since April 16th (with two exceptions) and yet there has been no consequent increase in deaths.
Is it because this wave of infection is limited to migrant workers who are all young?
Probably partly that, and partly because the number of infections is still rising rapidly. Deaths have been rising too, but the apparently fatality rate is still only about 0.1%. Once the number of infections starts to drop, no doubt the apparent fatality rate will rise.
hi Chris
I asked you this above but you were obviously too busy to read it. You seem like a man who knows his infection rates. What was the R value of SARS and MERS.
TIA
I think that would be very hard to answer given the relatively small number of cases. Because viral shedding didn't happen before infection was obvious, intervention to rapidly lower R, and kill of the outbreak completely, was relatively simple. So we never really got very much data on how quickly the virus would spread if left completely uncontrolled.
How was it contained?
Because the dangerous spreading phase was associated with symptoms, it was much easier. Almost self limiting - the movie image of the dying guy, staggering around coughing ZombiePlague over everyone is just that. A movie thing. Most people who are feeling that sick find a doctor or crawl into bed.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
The traffic light thing is fatuous.
My impression is that their plan is just to watch the numbers and if they go the wrong way by more than (insert trigger) to re-impose tighter restrictions. Otherwise, keep gradually loosening - which is what they are hoping to be able to do - but "hope" is very much the word. I suppose they could call this "following the science", at a pinch, but it is essentially a reactive approach. I sense that the virus remains something of an enigma out there, also that there is little confidence we will be able to manage a large and robust 'track, trace & isolate' regime.
I find the idea that people have been putting off seeking medical help genuinely baffling. I have recently needed medical help, and as it turned out an early diagnosis was very important. The Corona situation played no role in my decision to seek medical help or not. Although I am in Germany, I don't thiink I would have done anything differently had I been in the UK and I am horrified by the idea that I would delay getting a diagnosis because of not wanting to get in the way of medical staff.
There is the other issue too - in some areas with very little viral impact, the hospitals and medical staff quite literally locked the doors and refused to treat regular out-patients. There are also reports of staff sitting around in empty hospitals because they emptied them out and the anticipated influx of pandemic patients never materialised.
Hence Whitty was ramming home the message last night that the virus is only very dangerous for a minority.
Expect to see this message repeated over the next week.
The problem with this "message" is that the majority still pass the virus on to the high risk category, and very many will have no idea that they are infectious. We should also not forget that there is a large group of people who get ill but survive (like Boris).
I find the idea that people have been putting off seeking medical help genuinely baffling. I have recently needed medical help, and as it turned out an early diagnosis was very important. The Corona situation played no role in my decision to seek medical help or not. Although I am in Germany, I don't thiink I would have done anything differently had I been in the UK and I am horrified by the idea that I would delay getting a diagnosis because of not wanting to get in the way of medical staff.
GP surgeries have closed here so it's hard to get seen.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
The traffic light thing is fatuous.
My impression is that their plan is just to watch the numbers and if they go the wrong way by more than (insert trigger) to re-impose tighter restrictions. Otherwise, keep gradually loosening - which is what they are hoping to be able to do - but "hope" is very much the word. I suppose they could call this "following the science", at a pinch, but it is essentially a reactive approach. I sense that the virus remains something of an enigma out there, also that there is little confidence we will be able to manage a large and robust 'track, trace & isolate' regime.
It is basically what everybody is doing. Germany already had some stop / starting. Given we won't accept a South Korean style surveillance system, I think the track / trace is a bit like airport scanners. Do they stop terrorism, no, do they stop the total nutter with a knife getting onboard, yes.
I can understand why the government wanted a centralized system, but that gives them some overview. The decentralized system means they are always behind the outbreak.
At the core, from Witty's answers, I don't think they really know the main transmission vectors. I think we can guess things like nightclubs are a bad idea, but no certainty of many other potential avenues.
What we do know is containing this is basically impossible. One bloke goes for a night out in South Korea and now got 100+ cases and rising.
Meanwhile for the UK it's still anyone who fancies it I think.
So you CAN transit through France to reach your residence? My question then is this: what happens to a UK citizen arriving at Heathrow or St Pancras International? Will authorities have any clue if they have arrived from Hanoi via Paris?
If there is cooperation could the French not simply pass on the details of anyone arriving on an international flight using a British passport on to the UK authorities? They would then be stopped when they try to enter the UK
If the puritans have their way, places like nightclubs will never open again. "Too risky". "Not safe".
Not never but too long for any sort of furlough scheme. Nightclubs open, a huge infection spike occurs, the risk level goes up and the Gov't has to shut down clothing retailers again ?! Not a very good scenario.
So you close nightclubs forever. Cinemas? Theatres? Comedy clubs? Cafes? Museums? Galleries? Concert halls? Music venues?
What sort of scenario is that?
Potentially its the scenario we face for a year or two until a vaccine is developed.
Its a horrible scenario but it may be where we are whether we like it or not.
Is the government really going to cut the money paid to those employees legally forbidden from going back to work?
I gather Sunak will be talking about this later today. He has a fine balance to strike. Needs to cut furlough to incentivize work but maintain support to prevent public and political grief. If I were him I'd err on the side of fiscal laxity right now. When you're in a hole you might as well keep digging a little longer - that's what they say, isn't it?
Cut furlough to incentivise work? Furloughs are subsidies paid to employers, not employees, to keep them in business and to prevent mass unemployment. An employee cannot turn up for work this morning if the doors are still locked and the production line stopped. Cut furlough to incentivise reopening, perhaps.
Yes, that's more what I meant. Withdrawal of furlough would force the employer's hand - put people to work or fire them.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
The traffic light thing is fatuous.
My impression is that their plan is just to watch the numbers and if they go the wrong way by more than (insert trigger) to re-impose tighter restrictions. Otherwise, keep gradually loosening - which is what they are hoping to be able to do - but "hope" is very much the word. I suppose they could call this "following the science", at a pinch, but it is essentially a reactive approach. I sense that the virus remains something of an enigma out there, also that there is little confidence we will be able to manage a large and robust 'track, trace & isolate' regime.
It is basically what everybody is doing. Germany already had some stop / starting.
In Germany a town/city has to return to full measures if the number of new infections rises above a threshold. This is (off the top of my head) 50 daily new cases per 100,000 population, averaged over a week. I have so far heard of two towns who exceeded this threshold.
The situation in Singapore is interesting. They've been reporting more than 500 new cases every day since April 16th (with two exceptions) and yet there has been no consequent increase in deaths.
Is it because this wave of infection is limited to migrant workers who are all young?
Probably partly that, and partly because the number of infections is still rising rapidly. Deaths have been rising too, but the apparently fatality rate is still only about 0.1%. Once the number of infections starts to drop, no doubt the apparent fatality rate will rise.
hi Chris
I asked you this above but you were obviously too busy to read it. You seem like a man who knows his infection rates. What was the R value of SARS and MERS.
TIA
I think that would be very hard to answer given the relatively small number of cases. Because viral shedding didn't happen before infection was obvious, intervention to rapidly lower R, and kill of the outbreak completely, was relatively simple. So we never really got very much data on how quickly the virus would spread if left completely uncontrolled.
"R0 estimates for SARS have been reported to range between 2 and 5, which is within the range of the mean R0 for COVID-19 found in this review."
Sure, but my point was that those estimates are based on relatively little empirical evidence. Whereas once we have widespread population testing for both infection and antibodies, we'll have a pretty good idea for this one.
Parisians have been banned from drinking alcohol on the banks of the Saint-Martin canal and the Seine river after police were forced to disperse crowds just hours after an eight-week coronavirus lockdown was eased.
Many city dwellers stuck in flats without balconies, terraces or gardens for almost two months turned out on Monday evening to celebrate. Photos quickly circulated of unmasked revellers gathering by the water in the French capital.
The situation in Singapore is interesting. They've been reporting more than 500 new cases every day since April 16th (with two exceptions) and yet there has been no consequent increase in deaths.
Is it because this wave of infection is limited to migrant workers who are all young?
Probably partly that, and partly because the number of infections is still rising rapidly. Deaths have been rising too, but the apparently fatality rate is still only about 0.1%. Once the number of infections starts to drop, no doubt the apparent fatality rate will rise.
hi Chris
I asked you this above but you were obviously too busy to read it. You seem like a man who knows his infection rates. What was the R value of SARS and MERS.
TIA
I think that would be very hard to answer given the relatively small number of cases. Because viral shedding didn't happen before infection was obvious, intervention to rapidly lower R, and kill of the outbreak completely, was relatively simple. So we never really got very much data on how quickly the virus would spread if left completely uncontrolled.
How was it contained?
Because the dangerous spreading phase was associated with symptoms, it was much easier. Almost self limiting - the movie image of the dying guy, staggering around coughing ZombiePlague over everyone is just that. A movie thing. Most people who are feeling that sick find a doctor or crawl into bed.
Thanks. I've just found a BMJ paper on it so will read through it also.
The World Health Organization said on Tuesday that some treatments appear to be limiting the severity or length of the Covid-19 respiratory disease and said the body is focusing on learning more about four or five of the most promising ones.
“We do have some treatments that seem to be in very early studies limiting the severity or the length of the illness but we do not have anything that can kill or stop the virus,” spokeswoman Margaret Harris told a virtual briefing, referring to the body’s so-called Solidarity Trial of drugs against the disease.
I find the idea that people have been putting off seeking medical help genuinely baffling. I have recently needed medical help, and as it turned out an early diagnosis was very important. The Corona situation played no role in my decision to seek medical help or not. Although I am in Germany, I don't thiink I would have done anything differently had I been in the UK and I am horrified by the idea that I would delay getting a diagnosis because of not wanting to get in the way of medical staff.
GP surgeries have closed here so it's hard to get seen.
Really! Wow. So I would have had to call a GP out to my house, had I been in the UK?
A fire at a St Petersburg hospital has killed five coronavirus patients in an intensive care unit. The blaze was apparently started by a short-circuit in a ventilator, Russian news agencies reported.
All the patients who died at St George Hospital had been on ventilators.
It quotes doctors as saying a short-circuit caused a ventilator "literally to explode" because of the oxygen concentration, and the ward filled with smoke, which suffocated the patients.
Reuters news agency found that outside Moscow many ventilators are old - made in the 1990s.
If the puritans have their way, places like nightclubs will never open again. "Too risky". "Not safe".
Not never but too long for any sort of furlough scheme. Nightclubs open, a huge infection spike occurs, the risk level goes up and the Gov't has to shut down clothing retailers again ?! Not a very good scenario.
It's not, but if Mumsnet and the Piers Morgan followers who seem to want a total no exceptions curfew continue to push their agenda too hard, they'll end up with restrictions in future being widely ignored. You need to at least try to see what happens, otherwise you may end up a few months down the line with an underground night time economy of secret lock-ins and illegal raves which would be much harder to regulate and probably much riskier health wise.
I find the idea that people have been putting off seeking medical help genuinely baffling. I have recently needed medical help, and as it turned out an early diagnosis was very important. The Corona situation played no role in my decision to seek medical help or not. Although I am in Germany, I don't thiink I would have done anything differently had I been in the UK and I am horrified by the idea that I would delay getting a diagnosis because of not wanting to get in the way of medical staff.
GP surgeries have closed here so it's hard to get seen.
Really! Wow. So I would have had to call a GP out to my house, had I been in the UK?
I am not sure that is nationwide. My elderly parents have been to the GPs since lockdown. They were first asked all the usual questions and on visiting there was no waiting room.
I find the idea that people have been putting off seeking medical help genuinely baffling. I have recently needed medical help, and as it turned out an early diagnosis was very important. The Corona situation played no role in my decision to seek medical help or not. Although I am in Germany, I don't thiink I would have done anything differently had I been in the UK and I am horrified by the idea that I would delay getting a diagnosis because of not wanting to get in the way of medical staff.
GP surgeries have closed here so it's hard to get seen.
Really! Wow. So I would have had to call a GP out to my house, had I been in the UK?
Some GPs seem to have decided not to work. Others are providing a full service - mine is.
It's slightly more than that. It goes back to, pre-the 2016 election, the FBI had been granted permission to spy on the Trump campaign without telling the courts that it was off the back of information paid for by Hillary Clinton's team. When Trump unexpectedly won, Trump is claiming that Obama deliberately tried to sabotage the incoming administration by playing up the Russian links and that Flynn was specifically targeted because he was the one member of the incoming administration who knew how the intelligence services operated and therefore what would have been the chain of command for seeking permission to spy on Trump i.e. to Obama himself.
Except it wasn't "off the back of information paid for by Clinton's team". That's more spin. Flynn was charged because he blatantly violated the law (and subsequently pled guilty). The dismissal of the case against him is exceedingly dubious.
Don't scare him off, we have a real live Trump apologist amongst us, rarer than hen's teeth these days!
I will happily take the risk and do stuff for all those too frightened to put their heads out the door. My charges will be modestly steep but affordable
Yes - it is a very nasty bug, but it is not Ebola, Smallpox or Typhoid. A hundred years ago our ancestors all lived with far worse bugs.
Anyway, not much change around this place - Boris's supporters kissing his a*se whilst outside this forum everyone treats Boris and his Sunday Pronouncement as beyond a joke. Do not think that the general public did not spot Boris's abdication of leadership. They did.
Interesting. The approval ratings are still positive.
Parisians have been banned from drinking alcohol on the banks of the Saint-Martin canal and the Seine river after police were forced to disperse crowds just hours after an eight-week coronavirus lockdown was eased.
Many city dwellers stuck in flats without balconies, terraces or gardens for almost two months turned out on Monday evening to celebrate. Photos quickly circulated of unmasked revellers gathering by the water in the French capital.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
The traffic light thing is fatuous.
What are you talking about?
There's great detail in the guidance about controlling the virus as the lockdown is eased. Are you serious and did you miss it all? Do you need it explaining or are you trying to be fatuous?
Perhaps I did not express that clearly.
There is an aspiration set out for a track/trace/isolate program...
For such a system to work, several systems need to be built and successfully integrated. These include: ● widespread swab testing with rapid turn-around time, digitally-enabled to order the test and securely receive the result certification; ● local authority public health services to bring a valuable local dimension to testing, contact tracing and support to people who need to self-isolate; ● automated, app-based contact-tracing through the new NHS COVID-19 app to (anonymously) alert users when they have been in close contact with someone identified as having been infected; and ● online and phone-based contact tracing, staffed by health professionals and call handlers and working closely with local government, both to get additional information from people reporting symptoms about their recent contacts and places they have visited, and to give appropriate advice to those contacts, working alongside the app and the testing system...
... but eff all guidance as to the progress made towards implementing it, or likely timelines. In the meantime we have the fairly fatuous traffic light system.
Pubs are a huge problem for Sunak and Hancock, I don't envy their choices on those.
Beer gardens with well spaced tables and hatch or ipad ordering should be allowed to open.
Agreed as long as it is well policed because supply is going to far outstrip demand. Pre-booking only perhaps. Be as exciting as getting as getting an Ocado delivery slot. Trouble is it's guaranteed to be pissing down when our slot rolls around
What we do know is containing this is basically impossible. One bloke goes for a night out in South Korea and now got 100+ cases and rising.
Do we know that?
I think there's a good chance that the South Korean contact tracing system will be able to contain this latest outbreak as they did with the earlier outbreak from the religious community.
A contact tracing app based on the Google/Apple APIs using bluetooth may be even more effective if supported by rapid testing.
I don't see why this can't be used to prevent both another wave of >50,000 deaths and the lockdown measures we used to restrict fatalities to that level.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
The traffic light thing is fatuous.
My impression is that their plan is just to watch the numbers and if they go the wrong way by more than (insert trigger) to re-impose tighter restrictions. Otherwise, keep gradually loosening - which is what they are hoping to be able to do - but "hope" is very much the word. I suppose they could call this "following the science", at a pinch, but it is essentially a reactive approach. I sense that the virus remains something of an enigma out there, also that there is little confidence we will be able to manage a large and robust 'track, trace & isolate' regime.
Quite. There is still no sign of a proactive stop outbreaks in their tracks effort.
What we do know is containing this is basically impossible. One bloke goes for a night out in South Korea and now got 100+ cases and rising.
Do we know that?
I think there's a good chance that the South Korean contact tracing system will be able to contain this latest outbreak as they did with the earlier outbreak from the religious community.
A contact tracing app based on the Google/Apple APIs using bluetooth may be even more effective if supported by rapid testing.
I don't see why this can't be used to prevent both another wave of >50,000 deaths and the lockdown measures we used to restrict fatalities to that level.
South Korea can stop it from getting out of control, but this thing is too infectious to completely contain it.
And the difference between South Korea and here, there the government can see all the info in near real time and use all sorts of measures to track people down (most of which is automated).
When we move to the Google / Apple approach, the government won't see the outbreaks until for many days, as people present for tests. And a lot of this will still be manual, hence the 18,000 staff.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
The traffic light thing is fatuous.
What are you talking about?
There's great detail in the guidance about controlling the virus as the lockdown is eased. Are you serious and did you miss it all? Do you need it explaining or are you trying to be fatuous?
Perhaps I did not express that clearly.
There is an aspiration set out for a track/trace/isolate program...
For such a system to work, several systems need to be built and successfully integrated. These include: ● widespread swab testing with rapid turn-around time, digitally-enabled to order the test and securely receive the result certification; ● local authority public health services to bring a valuable local dimension to testing, contact tracing and support to people who need to self-isolate; ● automated, app-based contact-tracing through the new NHS COVID-19 app to (anonymously) alert users when they have been in close contact with someone identified as having been infected; and ● online and phone-based contact tracing, staffed by health professionals and call handlers and working closely with local government, both to get additional information from people reporting symptoms about their recent contacts and places they have visited, and to give appropriate advice to those contacts, working alongside the app and the testing system...
... but eff all guidance as to the progress made towards implementing it, or likely timelines. In the meantime we have the fairly fatuous traffic light system.
The timeline will be as fast as possible. We don't need a timeline to have guidance.
Guidance is issued as for what you ie the public can control, what you are asking for is not that, this is something the government with councils and associated bodies will be doing so that's not what guidance is required for.
It's slightly more than that. It goes back to, pre-the 2016 election, the FBI had been granted permission to spy on the Trump campaign without telling the courts that it was off the back of information paid for by Hillary Clinton's team. When Trump unexpectedly won, Trump is claiming that Obama deliberately tried to sabotage the incoming administration by playing up the Russian links and that Flynn was specifically targeted because he was the one member of the incoming administration who knew how the intelligence services operated and therefore what would have been the chain of command for seeking permission to spy on Trump i.e. to Obama himself.
Except it wasn't "off the back of information paid for by Clinton's team". That's more spin. Flynn was charged because he blatantly violated the law (and subsequently pled guilty). The dismissal of the case against him is exceedingly dubious.
Don't scare him off, we have a real live Trump apologist amongst us, rarer than hen's teeth these days!
The news conference where Trump was asked what it was all about was a hoot. Sadly I think this may work, having seen interviews with some of his supporters at a rally they are easily convinced. My favourite was Obama being absent from the White House on vacation during 9/11 and doing nothing about it. Well true I suppose; he was absent from the White House.
I also saw for the first time the clips where Trump thought F35s were invisible. Don't know how I missed that one before, but frustrated that I didn't get the opportunity to sell him the contents of an empty hanger.
So Max, easily understandable, but you are not out of the loop, Obamagate does not exist.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
The traffic light thing is fatuous.
My impression is that their plan is just to watch the numbers and if they go the wrong way by more than (insert trigger) to re-impose tighter restrictions. Otherwise, keep gradually loosening - which is what they are hoping to be able to do - but "hope" is very much the word. I suppose they could call this "following the science", at a pinch, but it is essentially a reactive approach. I sense that the virus remains something of an enigma out there, also that there is little confidence we will be able to manage a large and robust 'track, trace & isolate' regime.
Good impression. That's a reasonably succinct version of what the Prime Minister said on Sunday.
Glad you could understand it and it wasn't "confusing" to you like it was so many others it seems!
Social care is a mess because we value the right to pass and receive a large tax-free inheritance above the responsibility to provide dignity for all in old age. This is the choice we have made. Little point moaning about it if we are not prepared to make a different value judgment.
I am going to bite.
It was the party you supported which made a big hoo ha about people having to use their homes and savings to pay for their care, which was outraged at the idea that children might have to foregoing their large inheritances in order to pay for Mum’s care. This was the value judgment made by the party which likes to proclaim that it cares about the vulnerable.
Well I personally thought the Dementia Tax was a good policy. As was Andy Burnham's Death Tax a few years prior. But both got trashed by political opportunism from the other side. Opportunism that succeeded because - as I say - it is in line with the value judgment the public have made. That sorting out social care is less important than the right to pass and receive a chunky inheritance free of tax.
Is it the right to receive an inheritance that drives this, or worrying that those who have saved for their old age get ripped off when compared to those who have spent all their money instead?
A wealth tax has the same problem. If you target savings you are punishing some people for being prudent.
Coming up with a fair solution is difficult.
I think you're right. Inheritance vs social care funding is at the heart of this but that sentiment - "I've saved all my life so those who haven't should not benefit in any way from my prudence" - is in the mix too. In fact they are strongly related if you think about it. And, yes, it is one of the big arguments advanced against wealth taxes generally.
A fair solution for social care is difficult? Here I do disagree. I think a fair solution is impossible. It's impossible because there is no consensus, nor is there ever likely to be, on what is "fair" here. All we can aim for is a system which reflects the public's values and priorities. We have such a system now and it will not change unless and until the values and priorities change.
The great unwashed of Bridgend are furious at Drakeford for keeping us in lockdown. Drakeford's 'indecision' does not compare well to Boris' 'deciseveness' 'Boris gets things done' was the clarion call.
It's slightly more than that. It goes back to, pre-the 2016 election, the FBI had been granted permission to spy on the Trump campaign without telling the courts that it was off the back of information paid for by Hillary Clinton's team. When Trump unexpectedly won, Trump is claiming that Obama deliberately tried to sabotage the incoming administration by playing up the Russian links and that Flynn was specifically targeted because he was the one member of the incoming administration who knew how the intelligence services operated and therefore what would have been the chain of command for seeking permission to spy on Trump i.e. to Obama himself.
Except it wasn't "off the back of information paid for by Clinton's team". That's more spin. Flynn was charged because he blatantly violated the law (and subsequently pled guilty). The dismissal of the case against him is exceedingly dubious.
Don't scare him off, we have a real live Trump apologist amongst us, rarer than hen's teeth these days!
I would add - the use of the FISA court system as a rubber stamp to approve surveillance against citizens is not something that anyone should be happy about.
What we do know is containing this is basically impossible. One bloke goes for a night out in South Korea and now got 100+ cases and rising.
Do we know that?
I think there's a good chance that the South Korean contact tracing system will be able to contain this latest outbreak as they did with the earlier outbreak from the religious community.
A contact tracing app based on the Google/Apple APIs using bluetooth may be even more effective if supported by rapid testing.
I don't see why this can't be used to prevent both another wave of >50,000 deaths and the lockdown measures we used to restrict fatalities to that level.
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. If you have systems in place, you can try things without risking having to go back into full lockdown if they go seriously wrong. We seem to be nowhere near that yet.
The great unwashed of Bridgend are furious at Drakeford for keeping us in lockdown. Drakeford's 'indecision' does not compare well to Boris' 'deciseveness' 'Boris gets things done' was the clarion call.
So PB Tories are at one with the proles.
Interesting use of the phrase "gets things done", closely mirroring the election campaign.
Pubs are a huge problem for Sunak and Hancock, I don't envy their choices on those.
Beer gardens with well spaced tables and hatch or ipad ordering should be allowed to open.
Agreed as long as it is well policed because supply is going to far outstrip demand. Pre-booking only perhaps. Be as exciting as getting as getting an Ocado delivery slot. Trouble is it's guaranteed to be pissing down when our slot rolls around
Yeah, there's a huge number of practical issues with it. Unless you control people 'at the door', you're going to be overrun with people very quickly. and you don't want people hanging around operating a one-in one-out for a pint.
The great unwashed of Bridgend are furious at Drakeford for keeping us in lockdown. Drakeford's 'indecision' does not compare well to Boris' 'deciseveness' 'Boris gets things done' was the clarion call.
A fire at a St Petersburg hospital has killed five coronavirus patients in an intensive care unit. The blaze was apparently started by a short-circuit in a ventilator, Russian news agencies reported.
All the patients who died at St George Hospital had been on ventilators.
It quotes doctors as saying a short-circuit caused a ventilator "literally to explode" because of the oxygen concentration, and the ward filled with smoke, which suffocated the patients.
Reuters news agency found that outside Moscow many ventilators are old - made in the 1990s.
Importing medical equipment to SPb in the 90s was the vehicle the Familiya used to allow Putin to be a billionaire. In the fond hope that would make him easier to control...
Come October we're going to be looking at heading into the winter flu season. Seems hard to believe the lockdown will be lifted over winter if it isn't by the autumn.
The great unwashed of Bridgend are furious at Drakeford for keeping us in lockdown. Drakeford's 'indecision' does not compare well to Boris' 'deciseveness' 'Boris gets things done' was the clarion call.
So PB Tories are at one with the proles.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some breaking along Brexit lines.
All my middle class Remain voting friends are very very concerned about sending little Johnny back to school and can continue to work from home, have a garden to chill out in, so think all this is very reckless, poorly thought out and want absolute guarantees before they are willing to move (which they won't get).
The great unwashed of Bridgend are furious at Drakeford for keeping us in lockdown. Drakeford's 'indecision' does not compare well to Boris' 'deciseveness' 'Boris gets things done' was the clarion call.
So PB Tories are at one with the proles.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some breaking along Brexit lines.
All my middle class Remain voting friends are very very concerned about sending little Johnny back to school and can continue to work from home, have a garden to chill out in, so think all this is very reckless, poorly thought out and want absolute guarantees before they are willing to move (which they won't get).
I wonder, do they spare any thought for the plebs that are keeping them stocked up with supplies and such?
The great unwashed of Bridgend are furious at Drakeford for keeping us in lockdown. Drakeford's 'indecision' does not compare well to Boris' 'deciseveness' 'Boris gets things done' was the clarion call.
So PB Tories are at one with the proles.
Unless it's an Albanian cab driver saying it it's meaningless.
If the puritans have their way, places like nightclubs will never open again. "Too risky". "Not safe".
Not never but too long for any sort of furlough scheme. Nightclubs open, a huge infection spike occurs, the risk level goes up and the Gov't has to shut down clothing retailers again ?! Not a very good scenario.
So you close nightclubs forever. Cinemas? Theatres? Comedy clubs? Cafes? Museums? Galleries? Concert halls? Music venues?
What sort of scenario is that?
Potentially its the scenario we face for a year or two until a vaccine is developed.
Its a horrible scenario but it may be where we are whether we like it or not.
But mass unemployment, economic depression and the effective closure of all communal activity does not seem to me to be either feasible or desirable.
It depends what we're talking about.
For a year it may be necessary to shut down elements of our communal lives. But it depends upon a lot of factors. There's no right or easy solutions.
True, and that's why any measures should be subject to extensive public consultation, rigorous, evidence-based analysis and full Parliamentary debate. The lockdown was imposed without the first two, and the last was very limited. I never saw an official impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis of the lockdown.
If this ever happens again, we must approach it totally differently. Above all, any measures, such as closing schools or national parks, must be imposed only if they are proved beyond doubt to offset any damage caused. Otherwise we'll end up with lots of ineffective and counter-productive measures, as we have this time, while the real problems, for instance the holocaust unfolding in our care homes, or the collapse of the economy, fester unchecked.
Come October we're going to be looking at heading into the winter flu season. Seems hard to believe the lockdown will be lifted over winter if it isn't by the autumn.
Social distancing is here to stay for the medium term. If business can open with that, I suspect they will be able to.
I will happily take the risk and do stuff for all those too frightened to put their heads out the door. My charges will be modestly steep but affordable
Yes - it is a very nasty bug, but it is not Ebola, Smallpox or Typhoid. A hundred years ago our ancestors all lived with far worse bugs.
Anyway, not much change around this place - Boris's supporters kissing his a*se whilst outside this forum everyone treats Boris and his Sunday Pronouncement as beyond a joke. Do not think that the general public did not spot Boris's abdication of leadership. They did.
Interesting. The approval ratings are still positive.
Comments
There will be some health risks for going back before the summer holiday. There will be major mental health risks for not doing so. The summer holiday is long enough that people joke how great it is for the schools to be reopening after it in normal circumstances - to last until then is going to be immensely challenging on everyone otherwise.
https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-12/spain-to-introduce-14-day-quarantine-for-international-travelers.html?ssm=FB_CM_EN&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0iFY01BiPJ-sO-cd39b9WSYQGTvrDHRCrg7o4-yq_AAhORXelyH_P14
Not a very good scenario.
The hypothesis was that richer more educated families obviously took time off to be with their kids, spent the holidays continuing education, activities to reinforce learning, preparing to go back, etc etc etc.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/government-approval
I asked you this above but you were obviously too busy to read it. You seem like a man who knows his infection rates. What was the R value of SARS and MERS.
TIA
If it was short-term and it helped the most vulnerable it would be endurable. But it doesn't look as if it will be and, pace my header, it doesn’t even seem to be much helping the most vulnerable.
So maybe we need to think the unthinkable......? I dunno really.
https://twitter.com/JMagosh/status/1260137575995629568?s=20
The ONS figures yesterday showed the risks by occupations. It's no surprise that education workers were lower than average.
That is my single biggest beef with current government guidance - it says absolutely nothing about what plans they have in place to control the resurgence of the virus as lockdown is eased.
The traffic light thing is fatuous.
The floor surely is a party-partisan split, which means we should see net negative figures - as we almost always do for everyone.
The fact that he's still getting net positive figures means that even many "anti-Tories" are giving him a positive rating.
Same for Starmer. He's net positive too so must be getting support from those who aren't Labour.
What sort of scenario is that?
There's great detail in the guidance about controlling the virus as the lockdown is eased. Are you serious and did you miss it all? Do you need it explaining or are you trying to be fatuous?
A wealth tax has the same problem. If you target savings you are punishing some people for being prudent.
Coming up with a fair solution is difficult.
Imagine being a kid cooped up in a house where the parents do not get along. It is going to be immensely damaging.
Because viral shedding didn't happen before infection was obvious, intervention to rapidly lower R, and kill of the outbreak completely, was relatively simple. So we never really got very much data on how quickly the virus would spread if left completely uncontrolled.
The HTML version maybe easier to search/quote from -
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-plan-to-rebuild-the-uk-governments-covid-19-recovery-strategy/our-plan-to-rebuild-the-uk-governments-covid-19-recovery-strategy#fourteen-supporting-programmes
Its a horrible scenario but it may be where we are whether we like it or not.
the problem is not opening them, it's opening them, and ensuring they can be economically viable to open.
The last museum I went to was very different to the last nightclub I went to. They should be kept closed longer in my opinion on any "lifting", perhaps too long for them to survive.
Other businesses you've mentioned are in the middle, the Gov't will have some choices to make there.
"R0 estimates for SARS have been reported to range between 2 and 5, which is within the range of the mean R0 for COVID-19 found in this review."
We have to live with it as other generations did with similar dangers. We cannot shut down our communal lives to avoid all risk. Not easy to say and not at all easy to do.
But mass unemployment, economic depression and the effective closure of all communal activity does not seem to me to be either feasible or desirable.
Yes - it is a very nasty bug, but it is not Ebola, Smallpox or Typhoid. A hundred years ago our ancestors all lived with far worse bugs.
Anyway, not much change around this place - Boris's supporters kissing his a*se whilst outside this forum everyone treats Boris and his Sunday Pronouncement as beyond a joke. Do not think that the general public did not spot Boris's abdication of leadership. They did.
I find the idea that people have been putting off seeking medical help genuinely baffling. I have recently needed medical help, and as it turned out an early diagnosis was very important. The Corona situation played no role in my decision to seek medical help or not. Although I am in Germany, I don't thiink I would have done anything differently had I been in the UK and I am horrified by the idea that I would delay getting a diagnosis because of not wanting to get in the way of medical staff.
https://twitter.com/bornmiserable/status/1260045153374359553
I can understand why the government wanted a centralized system, but that gives them some overview. The decentralized system means they are always behind the outbreak.
At the core, from Witty's answers, I don't think they really know the main transmission vectors. I think we can guess things like nightclubs are a bad idea, but no certainty of many other potential avenues.
What we do know is containing this is basically impossible. One bloke goes for a night out in South Korea and now got 100+ cases and rising.
For a year it may be necessary to shut down elements of our communal lives. But it depends upon a lot of factors. There's no right or easy solutions.
Many city dwellers stuck in flats without balconies, terraces or gardens for almost two months turned out on Monday evening to celebrate. Photos quickly circulated of unmasked revellers gathering by the water in the French capital.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/12/france-bans-drinking-by-the-seine-following-coronavirus-lockdown-ease
“We do have some treatments that seem to be in very early studies limiting the severity or the length of the illness but we do not have anything that can kill or stop the virus,” spokeswoman Margaret Harris told a virtual briefing, referring to the body’s so-called Solidarity Trial of drugs against the disease.
All the patients who died at St George Hospital had been on ventilators.
It quotes doctors as saying a short-circuit caused a ventilator "literally to explode" because of the oxygen concentration, and the ward filled with smoke, which suffocated the patients.
Reuters news agency found that outside Moscow many ventilators are old - made in the 1990s.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52629781
A doctor writes: but they were outdoors so might have been safer by the canal than getting the lift down to the ground floor of their flats.
There is an aspiration set out for a track/trace/isolate program...
For such a system to work, several systems need to be built and successfully integrated. These include:
● widespread swab testing with rapid turn-around time, digitally-enabled to order the test and securely receive the result certification;
● local authority public health services to bring a valuable local dimension to testing, contact tracing and support to people who need to self-isolate;
● automated, app-based contact-tracing through the new NHS COVID-19 app to (anonymously) alert users when they have been in close contact with someone identified as having been infected; and
● online and phone-based contact tracing, staffed by health professionals and call handlers and working closely with local government, both to get additional information from people reporting symptoms about their recent contacts and places they have visited, and to give appropriate advice to those contacts, working alongside the app and the testing system...
... but eff all guidance as to the progress made towards implementing it, or likely timelines.
In the meantime we have the fairly fatuous traffic light system.
Agreed as long as it is well policed because supply is going to far outstrip demand. Pre-booking only perhaps. Be as exciting as getting as getting an Ocado delivery slot. Trouble is it's guaranteed to be pissing down when our slot rolls around
I think there's a good chance that the South Korean contact tracing system will be able to contain this latest outbreak as they did with the earlier outbreak from the religious community.
A contact tracing app based on the Google/Apple APIs using bluetooth may be even more effective if supported by rapid testing.
I don't see why this can't be used to prevent both another wave of >50,000 deaths and the lockdown measures we used to restrict fatalities to that level.
Can people be monitored in real-time? "I cannot answer your question."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-52579475
There is still no sign of a proactive stop outbreaks in their tracks effort.
And the difference between South Korea and here, there the government can see all the info in near real time and use all sorts of measures to track people down (most of which is automated).
When we move to the Google / Apple approach, the government won't see the outbreaks until for many days, as people present for tests. And a lot of this will still be manual, hence the 18,000 staff.
Guidance is issued as for what you ie the public can control, what you are asking for is not that, this is something the government with councils and associated bodies will be doing so that's not what guidance is required for.
The alert system is for public consumption.
I also saw for the first time the clips where Trump thought F35s were invisible. Don't know how I missed that one before, but frustrated that I didn't get the opportunity to sell him the contents of an empty hanger.
So Max, easily understandable, but you are not out of the loop, Obamagate does not exist.
Glad you could understand it and it wasn't "confusing" to you like it was so many others it seems!
A fair solution for social care is difficult? Here I do disagree. I think a fair solution is impossible. It's impossible because there is no consensus, nor is there ever likely to be, on what is "fair" here. All we can aim for is a system which reflects the public's values and priorities. We have such a system now and it will not change unless and until the values and priorities change.
Just queued for the bank in Bridgend.
The great unwashed of Bridgend are furious at Drakeford for keeping us in lockdown. Drakeford's 'indecision' does not compare well to Boris' 'deciseveness' 'Boris gets things done' was the clarion call.
So PB Tories are at one with the proles.
If you have systems in place, you can try things without risking having to go back into full lockdown if they go seriously wrong. We seem to be nowhere near that yet.
Made more flexible so people can return to work part time.
Employees will receive upto 80% throughout
But not much of a choice right now.
All my middle class Remain voting friends are very very concerned about sending little Johnny back to school and can continue to work from home, have a garden to chill out in, so think all this is very reckless, poorly thought out and want absolute guarantees before they are willing to move (which they won't get).
If this ever happens again, we must approach it totally differently. Above all, any measures, such as closing schools or national parks, must be imposed only if they are proved beyond doubt to offset any damage caused. Otherwise we'll end up with lots of ineffective and counter-productive measures, as we have this time, while the real problems, for instance the holocaust unfolding in our care homes, or the collapse of the economy, fester unchecked.
Lock down smarter, not harder.