So are Labour Mayors "complaining like mad" about restrictions or "fully co-operating" with the government?
Yesterday they were complaining about too many restrictions, yet today Starmer is saying they don't go far enough.
Well Andy Burnham managed to argue with himself an interview yesterday....restaurants are bad because they spread it during eat out to help out, but now must remain open because he has data to suggest they are very low risk....
The lockdown should be as long as necessary to get the cases down.
The problem is the strong possibility that more people will die in the long-term from the effects of the lockdown than from Covid-19 itself.
Why is more people dying from the effects of lockdown than from Covid-19 a problem?
One is people being killed by our government and the other by an incurable disease. I'd say the latter would be easier for the deceased's loved ones to deal with
Hmm, not sure about that. Covid is not a great way to go. And "lockdown deaths" are harder to define. But that was not really what my question was driving at. It's more about the numbers.
1) 70,000 die from Covid. 100,000 die from Lockdown.
2) 200,000 die from Covid. 50,000 die from Lockdown.
Why is (1) worse? Why is it a problem? I'd say (2) is the bigger problem. Much bigger actually.
So the Tories go into meltdown when someone dares to suggest a way to clear up the latest mess they have allowed to develop.
If they had showed half as much interest and energy in solving the problem we might not have arrived in the shitshow we find ourselves in again.
To think only a couple of weeks ago several of them were applauding the daily stats and suggesting that the rule of six was a stroke of genius. Tbf that was before it came to light that the government had managed to 'mislay' 16k tests.
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
Well limiting non-essential foreign travel and proper airport testing and quarantine might just be an idea....
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
The NHS app is now full operative and I have used it in cafes and the cinema over the last week, the UK has also tested more per million than every nation on earth bar Israel, Denmark, Luxembourg, Andorra, Iceland and the UAE
How many alerts leading to concrete actions to stem the spread of the virus has it achieved?
Plenty, you are alerted if anyone is isolating with symptoms who was in a public location you were at the same time
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
The lockdown should be as long as necessary to get the cases down.
The problem is the strong possibility that more people will die in the long-term from the effects of the lockdown than from Covid-19 itself.
Why is more people dying from the effects of lockdown than from Covid-19 a problem?
One is people being killed by our government and the other by an incurable disease. I'd say the latter would be easier for the deceased's loved ones to deal with
Hmm, not sure about that. Covid is not a great way to go. And "lockdown deaths" are harder to define. But that was not really what my question was driving at. It's more about the numbers.
1) 70,000 die from Covid. 100,000 die from Lockdown.
2) 200,000 die from Covid. 50,000 die from Lockdown.
Why is (1) worse? Why is it a problem? I'd say (2) is the bigger problem. Much bigger actually.
What about
3) 7 people die of Covid, 1 million die from Lockdown
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The NHS is doing this already and it is actually a world beating response, medically.
There needs to be a Norway debate. Get rid of Boris. We don’t need his hyper political approach. Find a leader who can see us through this who can work with others.
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
The NHS app is now full operative and I have used it in cafes and the cinema over the last week, the UK has also tested more per million than every nation on earth bar Israel, Denmark, Luxembourg, Andorra, Iceland and the UAE
How many alerts leading to concrete actions to stem the spread of the virus has it achieved?
Plenty, you are alerted if anyone is isolating with symptoms who was in a public location you were at the same time
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
The rule of thumb from other countries is typically less than half the downloads, and I wouldn't even count active users as effective users as I'm sure that in some cases the service probably is not working properly due to all the usual Bluetooth and power management issues.
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
Any government would have struggled to deal with this crisis, and probably would have made the same mistakes.
We'll never know. However, Johnson's luck's run out. The major offices he has held he reached as a result of being lucky with him opponents (Ken Livingstone's loopiness was beginning to reemerge in 2008 and was on full display in 2012, and enough's been said re Corbyn in 2019) but he's now having to deal with the worst crisis of any post-war prime minister and a half decent opposition. Maybe that's unlucky, but it balances against the luck that got him here.
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
The NHS app is now full operative and I have used it in cafes and the cinema over the last week, the UK has also tested more per million than every nation on earth bar Israel, Denmark, Luxembourg, Andorra, Iceland and the UAE
How many alerts leading to concrete actions to stem the spread of the virus has it achieved?
Plenty, you are alerted if anyone is isolating with symptoms who was in a public location you were at the same time
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The NHS is doing this already and it is actually a world beating response, medically.
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
Ok think this through for more than two seconds then. What will another lockdown achieve, given that we know there still won't be a properr track, trace and isolate system in place afterwards.
I might change my mind tomorrow, but I think I agree that isolating everyone is a distraction from working out how to isolate the infectious.
We've had nearly seven months now of arguing in exhaustive detail over restrictions that apply to the whole population, and government funding for compensation for the same. We'd be in a better place now if we'd had that attention on working out how to isolate the infectious.
I don't want a whole winter of arguing over lockdown restrictions and still not having a system for isolating the infectious.
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The NHS is doing this already and it is actually a world beating response, medically.
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
The NHS app is now full operative and I have used it in cafes and the cinema over the last week, the UK has also tested more per million than every nation on earth bar Israel, Denmark, Luxembourg, Andorra, Iceland and the UAE
How many alerts leading to concrete actions to stem the spread of the virus has it achieved?
Plenty, you are alerted if anyone is isolating with symptoms who was in a public location you were at the same time
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
The rule of thumb from other countries is typically less than half the downloads, and I wouldn't even count active users as effective users as I'm sure that in some cases the service probably is not working properly due to all the usual Bluetooth and power management issues.
Also, how many downloaded it because their local pub insisted on it to check in, then immediately switched it off or deleted it?
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
The NHS app is now full operative and I have used it in cafes and the cinema over the last week, the UK has also tested more per million than every nation on earth bar Israel, Denmark, Luxembourg, Andorra, Iceland and the UAE
How many alerts leading to concrete actions to stem the spread of the virus has it achieved?
Plenty, you are alerted if anyone is isolating with symptoms who was in a public location you were at the same time
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
Ok think this through for more than two seconds then. What will another lockdown achieve, given that we know there still won't be a properr track, trace and isolate system in place afterwards.
I might change my mind tomorrow, but I think I agree that isolating everyone is a distraction from working out how to isolate the infectious.
We've had nearly seven months now of arguing in exhaustive detail over restrictions that apply to the whole population, and government funding for compensation for the same. We'd be in a better place now if we'd had that attention on working out how to isolate the infectious.
I don't want a whole winter of arguing over lockdown restrictions and still not having a system for isolating the infectious.
And Sir Keir's big idea is to close pubs in Penzance because there's a busy hospital on Merseyside
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The NHS is doing this already and it is actually a world beating response, medically.
The UK response outside Whitehall is pretty good.
Serco Test and Trace is woeful Tory Shitshow
I bundle cronies like Serco into the central shitshow. I am talking about our scientific research and medical response. The way private companies and front line services adapted is impressive. There is much to be proud of in the UK, our government sadly isn’t up to scratch.
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
The NHS app is now full operative and I have used it in cafes and the cinema over the last week, the UK has also tested more per million than every nation on earth bar Israel, Denmark, Luxembourg, Andorra, Iceland and the UAE
How many alerts leading to concrete actions to stem the spread of the virus has it achieved?
Plenty, you are alerted if anyone is isolating with symptoms who was in a public location you were at the same time
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
The rule of thumb from other countries is typically less than half the downloads, and I wouldn't even count active users as effective users as I'm sure that in some cases the service probably is not working properly due to all the usual Bluetooth and power management issues.
Also, how many downloaded it because their local pub insisted on it to check in, then immediately switched it off or deleted it?
How does it work? A few weeks ago (pre app launch) I had to scan a QR code and then fill in a form for a restaurant. I could just as easily have just pretended to scan the QR code and moved on....
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The NHS is doing this already and it is actually a world beating response, medically.
The UK response outside Whitehall is pretty good.
Serco Test and Trace is woeful Tory Shitshow
I bundle cronies like Serco into the central shitshow. I am talking about our scientific research and medical response. The way private companies and front line services adapted is impressive. There is much to be proud of in the UK, our government sadly isn’t up to scratch.
As with many 'problems' in Britain, the root of it as I see it is that the vast majority of the public want low taxes (for themselves, at least) and high public service provision. A low tax base and a big helping hand when necessary doesn't really happen....
My personal political philosophy is to encourage more saving, more home ownership, and less reliance upon the state. One concern with the current government (even Covid aside) is that it seems to be encouraging more reliance upon the state.
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The NHS is doing this already and it is actually a world beating response, medically.
Where are the results? Why are they not on posters and billboards or on the TV or broadcast hourly on radio?
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
Which means that more than 50 million have not downloaded it so far...
Well alternatively I suppose we could have automatic 6 month jail sentences for not downloading the NHS app and not wearing a facemask in a public place or breaching the rule of 6
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The NHS is doing this already and it is actually a world beating response, medically.
Where are the results? Why are they not on posters and billboards or on the TV or broadcast hourly on radio?
I’ve been thinking of lodging a formal complaint to the ASA about the broadcast on the new regulations.
It says anyone breaking them faces a ten grand fine.
But the Attorney General says if you decide there’s something more important, it doesn’t matter if you break them.
I think when they are appointed on an explicitly political basis it just insults everyone's intelligence to pretend that is not the driving factor for the judges, even if they don't believe it themselves. Oh sure, there will be instances where a conservative votes with the liberals or vice versa, people are not automatons and on some issues individuals will surprise, but by and large on divisive political issues, people have a very good chance of guessing the outcome of each one there.
The lockdown should be as long as necessary to get the cases down.
The problem is the strong possibility that more people will die in the long-term from the effects of the lockdown than from Covid-19 itself.
Why is more people dying from the effects of lockdown than from Covid-19 a problem?
One is people being killed by our government and the other by an incurable disease. I'd say the latter would be easier for the deceased's loved ones to deal with
Hmm, not sure about that. Covid is not a great way to go. And "lockdown deaths" are harder to define. But that was not really what my question was driving at. It's more about the numbers.
1) 70,000 die from Covid. 100,000 die from Lockdown.
2) 200,000 die from Covid. 50,000 die from Lockdown.
Why is (1) worse? Why is it a problem? I'd say (2) is the bigger problem. Much bigger actually.
What about
3) 7 people die of Covid, 1 million die from Lockdown
&
4) 2 million die of Covid, 5 die from Lockdown?
It's partly about optics. Covid deaths are immediate, identifiable, countable and newsworthy. Another 1000 deaths today, and here's the spouse/child of one of them to say Why didn’t the government do more? vs in five years time n people died of cancer today, and statistics suggest that some of them but we don't know which might have lived another 10 years but for the policies of the former Johnson administration.
Any government would have struggled to deal with this crisis, and probably would have made the same mistakes.
Maybe. They might have made some different ones, or avoided a few others. Nothing wrong in holding it to account for mistakes it has made, though the reasonableness of actions it took when it took them, with information known at the time, will make some things that look like obvious mistakes, and may well be mistakes, understandable.
The lockdown should be as long as necessary to get the cases down.
The problem is the strong possibility that more people will die in the long-term from the effects of the lockdown than from Covid-19 itself.
Why is more people dying from the effects of lockdown than from Covid-19 a problem?
One is people being killed by our government and the other by an incurable disease. I'd say the latter would be easier for the deceased's loved ones to deal with
Hmm, not sure about that. Covid is not a great way to go. And "lockdown deaths" are harder to define. But that was not really what my question was driving at. It's more about the numbers.
1) 70,000 die from Covid. 100,000 die from Lockdown.
2) 200,000 die from Covid. 50,000 die from Lockdown.
Why is (1) worse? Why is it a problem? I'd say (2) is the bigger problem. Much bigger actually.
What about
3) 7 people die of Covid, 1 million die from Lockdown
&
4) 2 million die of Covid, 5 die from Lockdown?
Both awful but I prefer 3. Pandemic avoided. Cure brutal but "better" than the disease.
You clearly get my point from the way you framed that.
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The NHS is doing this already and it is actually a world beating response, medically.
Where are the results? Why are they not on posters and billboards or on the TV or broadcast hourly on radio?
Dexamethasone is one, there's another drug in PIII at Southampton and there's a handful of PI candidates with promising results.
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
Which means that more than 50 million have not downloaded it so far...
Well alternatively I suppose we could have automatic 6 month jail sentences for not downloading the NHS app and not wearing a facemask in a public place or breaching the rule of 6
Around 25% of the population don't have smartphones.
How? No vaccine, 2 weeks circuit breaker does nothing, in fact its worse than doing nothing. No vaccine, we will have to get back to living as normally as possible with this added risk.
I never ever thought I would miss Maggie, but I would have her back in a heartbeat, for some decisive action to help us out of this current mess.
I'm not sure decisiveness is necessarily the issue. Sometimes the gov has been decisive, but people would say the wrong decision was made. Although endless dithering is indeed worse than never making a decision.
I think when they are appointed on an explicitly political basis it just insults everyone's intelligence to pretend that is not the driving factor for the judges, even if they don't believe it themselves. Oh sure, there will be instances where a conservative votes with the liberals or vice versa, people are not automatons and on some issues individuals will surprise, but by and large on divisive political issues, people have a very good chance of guessing the outcome of each one there.
No judge in a free society would ever say how they would decide a case the facts and legal arguments of which they have not yet heard. It's absolutely naive of politicians to ask such crass questions. It's not a question of conservative v liberal at all.
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
Which means that more than 50 million have not downloaded it so far...
Well alternatively I suppose we could have automatic 6 month jail sentences for not downloading the NHS app and not wearing a facemask in a public place or breaching the rule of 6
Around 25% of the population don't have smartphones.
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
Which means that more than 50 million have not downloaded it so far...
Well alternatively I suppose we could have automatic 6 month jail sentences for not downloading the NHS app and not wearing a facemask in a public place or breaching the rule of 6
Around 25% of the population don't have smartphones.
What do they have instead, Samsungs?
It is possible to live without a mobile phone you know.
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
Ok think this through for more than two seconds then. What will another lockdown achieve, given that we know there still won't be a properr track, trace and isolate system in place afterwards.
I might change my mind tomorrow, but I think I agree that isolating everyone is a distraction from working out how to isolate the infectious.
We've had nearly seven months now of arguing in exhaustive detail over restrictions that apply to the whole population, and government funding for compensation for the same. We'd be in a better place now if we'd had that attention on working out how to isolate the infectious.
I don't want a whole winter of arguing over lockdown restrictions and still not having a system for isolating the infectious.
How would this actually work though? My household of four decided in March that if I, for instance, caught the virus I would isolate in a room of our house with a bathroom until I was better plus a few days. What do you mean by "isolating the infectious"?
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
Which means that more than 50 million have not downloaded it so far...
Well alternatively I suppose we could have automatic 6 month jail sentences for not downloading the NHS app and not wearing a facemask in a public place or breaching the rule of 6
Around 25% of the population don't have smartphones.
What do they have instead, Samsungs?
It is possible to live without a mobile phone you know.
Is it? I haven’t tried for 24 years, I wouldn’t know.
I think when they are appointed on an explicitly political basis it just insults everyone's intelligence to pretend that is not the driving factor for the judges, even if they don't believe it themselves. Oh sure, there will be instances where a conservative votes with the liberals or vice versa, people are not automatons and on some issues individuals will surprise, but by and large on divisive political issues, people have a very good chance of guessing the outcome of each one there.
No judge in a free society would ever say how they would decide a case the facts and legal arguments of which they have not yet heard. It's absolutely naive of politicians to ask such crass questions. It's not a question of conservative v liberal at all.
The fact that the process is so political is the critical point, to the point that they do ask those questions because they don't want someone who is simply a good judge, they want a good judge who will definitely do what they want (or not do what they don't want). And the judges all know that. It's not naivity to ask the question, they will get what they want from it - even if they don't get a firm answer, for good reason, they want to feel out enough so they can be sure of the answer when it does come up.
The lockdown should be as long as necessary to get the cases down.
The problem is the strong possibility that more people will die in the long-term from the effects of the lockdown than from Covid-19 itself.
Why is more people dying from the effects of lockdown than from Covid-19 a problem?
One is people being killed by our government and the other by an incurable disease. I'd say the latter would be easier for the deceased's loved ones to deal with
Hmm, not sure about that. Covid is not a great way to go. And "lockdown deaths" are harder to define. But that was not really what my question was driving at. It's more about the numbers.
1) 70,000 die from Covid. 100,000 die from Lockdown.
2) 200,000 die from Covid. 50,000 die from Lockdown.
Why is (1) worse? Why is it a problem? I'd say (2) is the bigger problem. Much bigger actually.
What about
3) 7 people die of Covid, 1 million die from Lockdown
&
4) 2 million die of Covid, 5 die from Lockdown?
Both awful but I prefer 3. Pandemic avoided. Cure brutal but "better" than the disease.
You clearly get my point from the way you framed that.
Well yes, but I think you are deliberately making up scenarios that favour your point, whereas Andy's original post assumed a level of understanding from the reader that I think you have, but feign ignorance of.
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
Ok think this through for more than two seconds then. What will another lockdown achieve, given that we know there still won't be a properr track, trace and isolate system in place afterwards.
I might change my mind tomorrow, but I think I agree that isolating everyone is a distraction from working out how to isolate the infectious.
We've had nearly seven months now of arguing in exhaustive detail over restrictions that apply to the whole population, and government funding for compensation for the same. We'd be in a better place now if we'd had that attention on working out how to isolate the infectious.
I don't want a whole winter of arguing over lockdown restrictions and still not having a system for isolating the infectious.
How would this actually work though? My household of four decided in March that if I, for instance, caught the virus I would isolate in a room of our house with a bathroom until I was better plus a few days. What do you mean by "isolating the infectious"?
People who can't do that (because their house is more crowded than yours), be sent to an hotel for the duration of their isolation.
Between 3k and 107k? That kind of range makes it very very hard to make a decision, I would think - obviously if anything like the upper estimates are right then you must do it, but if it is the lower end, then the severe economic impacts come into play a lot more.
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
Ok think this through for more than two seconds then. What will another lockdown achieve, given that we know there still won't be a properr track, trace and isolate system in place afterwards.
I might change my mind tomorrow, but I think I agree that isolating everyone is a distraction from working out how to isolate the infectious.
We've had nearly seven months now of arguing in exhaustive detail over restrictions that apply to the whole population, and government funding for compensation for the same. We'd be in a better place now if we'd had that attention on working out how to isolate the infectious.
I don't want a whole winter of arguing over lockdown restrictions and still not having a system for isolating the infectious.
How would this actually work though? My household of four decided in March that if I, for instance, caught the virus I would isolate in a room of our house with a bathroom until I was better plus a few days. What do you mean by "isolating the infectious"?
People who can't do that (because their house is more crowded than yours), be sent to an hotel for the duration of their isolation.
Such a person would possibly be infecting others in addition to his family by leaving the home - and who would volunteer to staff such a hotel? Plus - the numbers of rooms that would be needed. This strikes me as an unworkable idea unless new infections were really low. Edit: and, of course, who would monitor the ongoing health status of the room occupiers to determine whether medical assistance /hospitalisation was needed? Each person would have to be on 24 hour watch.
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The NHS is doing this already and it is actually a world beating response, medically.
Where are the results? Why are they not on posters and billboards or on the TV or broadcast hourly on radio?
Dexamethasone is one, there's another drug in PIII at Southampton and there's a handful of PI candidates with promising results.
Well and good. What could be be doing NOW?
Should pubs and restaurants be installing UV lighting? Would it help to segregate pubs? Send the under 30s to one pub and have another for the over 30s? Or 50s? Or whatever?
They decided that masks could slow down Covid. What else would slow it down? Would boil washing clothes and bedding make a difference?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Vit D and Zinc made a 10% difference to the R rate. Suppose that masks made a 25% difference. Suppose that UV lighting made a 10% difference. Then all these sorts of things together might halve the R rate. Maybe massive Vit C overdoses in the coughing stage. There seems to be evidence that priming people with a flu jab can help.....
If you combine enough simple stuff, it can make a huge difference. The question is "What simple stuff"?
At the moment all there seems to be is "masks" and 2 metres. Is that really all there is?
Between 3k and 107k? That kind of range makes it very very hard to make a decision, I would think - obviously if anything like the upper estimates are right then you must do it, but if it is the lower end, then the severe economic impacts come into play a lot more.
How do weight the risk with such a wide range?
It worse than that. If its near 3k, how many extra people are dying because of restricting treatments for other diseases, poverty etc etc etc.
Is this necessarily a good thing? I'm wondering whether if people don't get flu for a year they won't have any immunity to it the future and it could be more dangerous to them when it does return.
Yes, it’s a good thing. And no. If you’re worried about not enough people getting flu then just vaccinate them.
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
Which means that more than 50 million have not downloaded it so far...
Well alternatively I suppose we could have automatic 6 month jail sentences for not downloading the NHS app and not wearing a facemask in a public place or breaching the rule of 6
Around 25% of the population don't have smartphones.
Well they would have to buy one or if they were on benefits be given one
I never ever thought I would miss Maggie, but I would have her back in a heartbeat, for some decisive action to help us out of this current mess.
I'm not sure decisiveness is necessarily the issue. Sometimes the gov has been decisive, but people would say the wrong decision was made. Although endless dithering is indeed worse than never making a decision.
I'd still choose a scientist over a classicist or a lawyer.
Between 3k and 100k....do these scientists want to be taken seriously, because that is just a nonsensical large range for a single action.
I really want to know who actually approves these reports. 3k to 107k is ridiculous.
I really am starting to wonder about the quality of some of this advice. The 2 week circuit breaker, you can't measure its impact, what scientist suggests experiments that they can't evaluate.
I remember using a mobile phone in about 1988 or 1989, a Vodafone. It was small enough to fit in a coat pocket. They'd become a lot smaller around that time compared to a couple of years earlier when they were massive. The keys would light up and make a beeping sound when you pressed them.
Between 3k and 100k....do these scientists want to be taken seriously, because that is just a nonsensical large range for a single action.
You said it "does nothing in fact its worse than doing nothing" Nobody takes that comment seriously surely
How about it gives another 3 weeks to improve track trace and isolate? Dido will surely use that wisely
I thought you were a man of science?
If no vaccine is forthcoming, shutting things down for 2 weeks won't alter the eventual outcome.
Track and trace is fundamentally flawed, because we can't spy on people lives, so it will always be of limited use. You can't do this quickly enough using humans to stop the spread, even at very low levels.
Who could have guessed starting with one arm tied behind your back (in terms of the bluetooth tech) was going to make this at best incredibly difficult. But nobody will agree to a South Korean style system in the West.
It would be better if we just ditched the app and concentrated on finding anything that mitigates the impact of the virus. For instance, does Vit.D and Zinc work at all? Even a 25% reduction would be useful. What about enforcing masks everywhere in a public space? What changes to ventilation systems would help?
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The NHS is doing this already and it is actually a world beating response, medically.
Where are the results? Why are they not on posters and billboards or on the TV or broadcast hourly on radio?
Dexamethasone is one, there's another drug in PIII at Southampton and there's a handful of PI candidates with promising results.
Well and good. What could be be doing NOW?
Should pubs and restaurants be installing UV lighting? Would it help to segregate pubs? Send the under 30s to one pub and have another for the over 30s? Or 50s? Or whatever?
They decided that masks could slow down Covid. What else would slow it down? Would boil washing clothes and bedding make a difference?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Vit D and Zinc made a 10% difference to the R rate. Suppose that masks made a 25% difference. Suppose that UV lighting made a 10% difference. Then all these sorts of things together might halve the R rate. Maybe massive Vit C overdoses in the coughing stage. There seems to be evidence that priming people with a flu jab can help.....
If you combine enough simple stuff, it can make a huge difference. The question is "What simple stuff"?
At the moment all there seems to be is "masks" and 2 metres. Is that really all there is?
Again, a lot of these things are still being evaluated because testing them isn't easy. The Japanese came up with a safe UV light that helps destroy the virus in a very short space of time, it's being considered for use in Japan at ports and airports to sterilise goods and containers.
PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
Ok think this through for more than two seconds then. What will another lockdown achieve, given that we know there still won't be a properr track, trace and isolate system in place afterwards.
I might change my mind tomorrow, but I think I agree that isolating everyone is a distraction from working out how to isolate the infectious.
We've had nearly seven months now of arguing in exhaustive detail over restrictions that apply to the whole population, and government funding for compensation for the same. We'd be in a better place now if we'd had that attention on working out how to isolate the infectious.
I don't want a whole winter of arguing over lockdown restrictions and still not having a system for isolating the infectious.
How would this actually work though? My household of four decided in March that if I, for instance, caught the virus I would isolate in a room of our house with a bathroom until I was better plus a few days. What do you mean by "isolating the infectious"?
People who can't do that (because their house is more crowded than yours), be sent to an hotel for the duration of their isolation.
Such a person would possibly be infecting others in addition to his family by leaving the home - and who would volunteer to staff such a hotel? Plus - the numbers of rooms that would be needed. This strikes me as an unworkable idea unless new infections were really low. Edit: and, of course, who would monitor the ongoing health status of the room occupiers to determine whether medical assistance /hospitalisation was needed? Each person would have to be on 24 hour watch.
It's more of an issue in large cities, where adults are living in bunk beds and working hourly paid jobs. Transport, monitoring and paying those to isolate are the issues, @MaxPB has made some good comments on this idea in the past few days.
Between 3k and 100k....do these scientists want to be taken seriously, because that is just a nonsensical large range for a single action.
I really want to know who actually approves these reports. 3k to 107k is ridiculous.
I really am starting to wonder about the quality of some of this advice. The 2 week circuit breaker, you can't measure its impact, what scientist suggests experiments that they can't evaluate.
Yeah if that's the range of the advice then I'm not surprised it was rejected by the Chancellor (probably one of the few cabinet ministers who understands data). 3k to 107k is not the kind of quality evidence that these major decisions should be made from.
Comments
1) 70,000 die from Covid. 100,000 die from Lockdown.
2) 200,000 die from Covid. 50,000 die from Lockdown.
Why is (1) worse? Why is it a problem? I'd say (2) is the bigger problem. Much bigger actually.
So many things that could make a difference, if only we knew what worked....
The mixed messages have negatively influenced public behaviour.
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1310564220140953600?s=20
3) 7 people die of Covid, 1 million die from Lockdown
&
4) 2 million die of Covid, 5 die from Lockdown?
(I've met a normal merman and a fairly modest German, but I’ve never met a nice South African.)
We've had nearly seven months now of arguing in exhaustive detail over restrictions that apply to the whole population, and government funding for compensation for the same. We'd be in a better place now if we'd had that attention on working out how to isolate the infectious.
I don't want a whole winter of arguing over lockdown restrictions and still not having a system for isolating the infectious.
299 v 82 - majority 217
Sir Abstainalots troops Abstain
And it's the total blended outcome that counts. Not measurable, really, but in theory this is right.
Therefore it is not necessarily a problem if more people die from Lockdown than die from Covid.
My personal political philosophy is to encourage more saving, more home ownership, and less reliance upon the state. One concern with the current government (even Covid aside) is that it seems to be encouraging more reliance upon the state.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8835229/Police-urge-Scottish-football-fans-not-travel-pubs-England-watch-Old-Firm-derby.html
It says anyone breaking them faces a ten grand fine.
But the Attorney General says if you decide there’s something more important, it doesn’t matter if you break them.
You clearly get my point from the way you framed that.
Keir was ahead of the curve.
https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1316068907778748416/photo/1
How do weight the risk with such a wide range?
Edit: and, of course, who would monitor the ongoing health status of the room occupiers to determine whether medical assistance /hospitalisation was needed? Each person would have to be on 24 hour watch.
Should pubs and restaurants be installing UV lighting? Would it help to segregate pubs? Send the under 30s to one pub and have another for the over 30s? Or 50s? Or whatever?
They decided that masks could slow down Covid. What else would slow it down? Would boil washing clothes and bedding make a difference?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Vit D and Zinc made a 10% difference to the R rate. Suppose that masks made a 25% difference. Suppose that UV lighting made a 10% difference. Then all these sorts of things together might halve the R rate. Maybe massive Vit C overdoses in the coughing stage. There seems to be evidence that priming people with a flu jab can help.....
If you combine enough simple stuff, it can make a huge difference. The question is "What simple stuff"?
At the moment all there seems to be is "masks" and 2 metres. Is that really all there is?
And no.
If you’re worried about not enough people getting flu then just vaccinate them.
How about it gives another 3 weeks to improve track trace and isolate? Dido will surely use that wisely
I thought you were a man of science?
Track and trace is fundamentally flawed, because we can't spy on people lives, so it will always be of limited use. You can't do this quickly enough using humans to stop the spread, even at very low levels.
No wonder the government is dithering.
Transport, monitoring and paying those to isolate are the issues, @MaxPB has made some good comments on this idea in the past few days.