politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump bans all travel to Europe for a month from tomorrow excl

geoffw said:

eristdoof said:

geoffw said:

Cyclefree said:

GideonWise said:

HYUFD said:

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

Classic Dom...

Great stuff. I think I might start retweeting that clipped video of Boris then because that is the underlying truth of the plan.

Doesn’t that mean exposing those most at risk to the virus? And what does that do to their chances?

It means exposing those at least risk (i.e. children) to the virus so that their acquired immunity acts as a break (as in breakwater) on the spread of the virus in the wider population. Meanwhile older and vulnerable adults should hunker down in self-isolation. People born later than 1960, which includes most of the parents of schoolchildren, are at relatively low risk of fatalities from this disease. I hope Peston's interpretation of the government 's strategy wrt "herd immunity" is correct.

Is this is advocationg that young people act as normal, but do not meet anyone over 60 because they are high risk? That is totally unworkable.

No. The people at risk are those over 70 with various comorbidities. They are mainly retired and at home normally. It doesn't take much for them to self-isolate, even from their grandchildren for a while (until the herd immunity kicks in). The behaviour of young people can't be prescribed - they will do as they do.

Philip_Thompson said:

kamski said:

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mysticrose said:

Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.

We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***

China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.

But Britain knows best.

They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.

SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.

The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.

And what have SK and Japan done that Italy hasn't?

Italy shut down schools, it shut down businesses, it implemented social distancing. It backfired and spread the disease further and faster.

The things that Italy ended up doing at the barrel of a gun, Japan and SK did voluntarily and calmly *before it was too late*. The period between "you can do this calmly with limited damage" and "FUCK FUCK FUCK TOO LATE" is not very long. This is why on this particular issue I'm rantier than usual.

That's not true.

Italy shut their schools etc in their affected regions on the 22nd February, at which point they had 79 recorded cases nationwide.

I believe that on the 22nd February they only closed schools in a few towns.
It was also already clear that the virus had already been circulating undetected in Lombardy at least, as they could not trace the infection back to any known case nor any travel to affected areas.

They closed the schools and took other draconian actions in the affected areas. It didn't work.

On 22 February, the government announced a new decree imposing the quarantine of more than 50,000 people from 11 different municipalities in Northern Italy. The quarantine zones are called the Red Zones and the areas in Lombardy and Veneto outside of them are called the Yellow Zones.[133] Penalties for violations range from a €206 fine to three months of imprisonment.[134] The Italian military and law enforcement agencies were instructed to secure and implement the lockdown.[135]

Schools were closed in ten municipalities in Lombardy, one in Veneto and one in Emilia Romagna. All public events were cancelled and some commercial activities[which?] were halted or were allowed to resume only until 6 p.m.[136][137] All religious services were cancelled.[138] Regional train services to the most affected areas were suspended, with trains skipping stops at Codogno, Maleo and Casalpusterlengo stations.[139][140]

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Scott_xP said:

This seems odd

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1238047746105520128

"Overall the evidence shows that in most ways they are as safe as conventional motorways but not in every way"

Overall the evidence shows that in most ways russian roulette is as safe as conventional sports, but not in every way. (Actually, safer: the risk of limb breakage, tendon strain and joint damage is nil.) So we should take further measures to improve its safety.

Great, particularly at this juncture, to see the government has a handle on probability and risk assessment.

I've heard a lot about this issue over the last few months. It's a bit like seat belts. They kill people who would have survived if they weren't wearing one. But they save many more lives of people who would have died without one.

You are a lot lot safer in a refuge area of a smart motorway than the hard shoulder of a regular motorway. But you are safer on the hard shoulder of a regular motorway than if you can't make it to a refuge area of a smart motorway.

Yes. The issues are around what happens when a car stops in a live lane, usually the inside one with no shoulder. The matrix signs need to be faster to react, along with recovery crews. Advice needs to be to remain in your vehicle, and there need to be more refuge areas.

I thought advice was [if its safe to do so] to get out of your vehicle and as far away from the road as possible?

On a normal motorway yes, you should get out and off the road behind your vehicle.

AIUI a high proportion of the fatalities on the smart motorways have been people trying to evacuate their vehicles struck directly by other vehicles, rather than as a result of two vehicles colliding.

You’re safest of all well away from the road, then in your car, then as a pedestrian on the carriageway.

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

She likes big butts and she cannot lie!

https://twitter.com/maskedsingerfox/status/1237951450686218242?s=21

LOL

One of the judges: "I've seen it all; I've literally seen it all."

Incredible! I think that judge might be Robin Thicke

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.

FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.

They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.

They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.

And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.

The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.

But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.

You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.

The analogy with smoking is fatuous.

The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.

If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.

So, you are saying it goes.

Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "

Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"

Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."

Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?

Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.

Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.

Sorry but that explanation does not pass the smell test.

Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.

Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?

Absurd.

Its in black and white.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869827/Coronavirus_action_plan_-_a_guide_to_what_you_can_expect_across_the_UK.pdf

Page 10 3.9• Delay: slow the spread in this country, if it does take hold, lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season

That's been pandemic advice for a century now. That doesn't mean the plan is to let it spread, the plan is actually saying the exact opposite of that!

The plan is specifically to slow the spread, not trying to stop the spread.

So the proposals everyone is making to try and eliminate any possible spread with travel restrictions, home working etc are not part of the UK govt plan because if they go hard now, then the chance of a second peak in the winter is higher.

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.

FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.

They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.

They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.

And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.

The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.

But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.

You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.

The analogy with smoking is fatuous.

The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.

If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.

So, you are saying it goes.

Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "

Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"

Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."

Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?

Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.

Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.

Sorry but that explanation does not pass the smell test.

Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.

Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?

Absurd.

Its in black and white.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869827/Coronavirus_action_plan_-_a_guide_to_what_you_can_expect_across_the_UK.pdf

Page 10 3.9• Delay: slow the spread in this country, if it does take hold, lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season

Where in that does it say we should "let it spread a bit" ?
Not giving people what is sensible advice to self-isolate (and which they are thinking about... !) is doing the precise opposite of slowing the spread.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Scott_xP said:

This seems odd

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1238047746105520128

"Overall the evidence shows that in most ways they are as safe as conventional motorways but not in every way"

Overall the evidence shows that in most ways russian roulette is as safe as conventional sports, but not in every way. (Actually, safer: the risk of limb breakage, tendon strain and joint damage is nil.) So we should take further measures to improve its safety.

Great, particularly at this juncture, to see the government has a handle on probability and risk assessment.

I've heard a lot about this issue over the last few months. It's a bit like seat belts. They kill people who would have survived if they weren't wearing one. But they save many more lives of people who would have died without one.

You are a lot lot safer in a refuge area of a smart motorway than the hard shoulder of a regular motorway. But you are safer on the hard shoulder of a regular motorway than if you can't make it to a refuge area of a smart motorway.

Yes. The issues are around what happens when a car stops in a live lane, usually the inside one with no shoulder. The matrix signs need to be faster to react, along with recovery crews. Advice needs to be to remain in your vehicle, and there need to be more refuge areas.

I thought advice was [if its safe to do so] to get out of your vehicle and as far away from the road as possible?

On a normal motorway yes, you should get out and off the road behind your vehicle.

AIUI a high proportion of the fatalities on the smart motorways have been people trying to evacuate their vehicles struck directly by other vehicles, rather than as a result of two vehicles colliding.

You’re safest of all well away from the road, then in your car, then as a pedestrian on the carriageway.

Well yes don't exit onto the carriageway. I've broken down twice on the motorway, was able to make it to the hard should both times thankfully. Both times I exited my vehicle by climbing over onto the passenger seat and out the passenger side, I didn't open my own door onto the carriageway!

If you can make it onto the inside lane then I would think you can safely get out via the passenger side, you aren't going to be overtaken on the inside if you're already there. If you aren't on the inside lane then I think you're f***ed but you would have been with or without a hard shoulder.

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.

FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.

They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.

They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.

And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.

The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.

But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.

You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.

The analogy with smoking is fatuous.

The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.

If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.

So, you are saying it goes.

Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "

Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"

Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."

Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?

Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.

Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.

Sorry but that explanation does not pass the smell test.

Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.

Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?

Absurd.

Its in black and white.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869827/Coronavirus_action_plan_-_a_guide_to_what_you_can_expect_across_the_UK.pdf

Page 10 3.9• Delay: slow the spread in this country, if it does take hold, lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season

Where in that does it say we should "let it spread a bit" ?
Not giving people what is sensible advice to self-isolate (and which they are thinking about... !) is doing the precise opposite of slowing the spread.

In contain the plan is prevent the disease spreading.
In delay the plan is slow the spread of the disease.

There is a reason those words are chosen, and the tactics in delay are used to slow not prevent the spreading. Slow involves spreading a bit.

No its an acknowledgement of reality, that containment has failed and can't succeed - not a choice not to contain.

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.

FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.

They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.

They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.

And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.

The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.

But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.

You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.

The analogy with smoking is fatuous.

The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.

If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.

So, you are saying it goes.

Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "

Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"

Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."

Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?

Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.

Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.

Sorry but that explanation does not pass the smell test.

Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.

Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?

Absurd.

Its in black and white.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869827/Coronavirus_action_plan_-_a_guide_to_what_you_can_expect_across_the_UK.pdf

Page 10 3.9• Delay: slow the spread in this country, if it does take hold, lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season

That's been pandemic advice for a century now. That doesn't mean the plan is to let it spread, the plan is actually saying the exact opposite of that!

The plan is specifically to slow the spread, not trying to stop the spread.

So the proposals everyone is making to try and eliminate any possible spread with travel restrictions, home working etc are not part of the UK govt plan because if they go hard now, then the chance of a second peak in the winter is higher.

No. 🙄

The plan is to stop the spread if possible, if its not possible to stop the spread then the plan is to delay the spread. Neither of that means the plan is to "let it spread a bit".

Its not possible to "eliminate any possible spread" because we aren't an isolationist, authoritarian backwater with no contact with the outside world.

What do you think Whitty means by this:

Pushing the peak of cases "further away from the winter pressures on the NHS" so that there was "more capacity to respond"

What actions can he take to make that happen? Building herd immunity by having a mild outbreak in spring (relatively, it will be horrible for many but better than what would happen otherwise next winter) is right at the top of the list.

I think he means delaying it from February/March and pushing it to the summer months. IE the opposite of "letting it spread".

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/gilesyb/status/1237999834822574080?s=21

No one is listening Alastair

I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.

Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.

The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone.
The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so.
Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.

We'll see.

In reality so far:
The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century.
The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.

What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?

Alternatively if the UK was doing so well in the EU why risk changing it dramatically?

Because Brexit was about far more than just economics.

Of course, but Philip was making an economic case based on two bits of economic data, that would be pointing to remain not leave. I was not trying to resolve the Brexit debate with a cheap one liner.

That's only part of the story though, the economic data points to the UK (being less enmeshed within the EU) doing better than the Eurozone even before we voted to leave, but that doesn't say anything about whether we were doing well because of the EU or not. Our membership of the EU should surely be measured by our performance against comparable non-EU nations. We need a control group to compare against and they can't be EU members.

If you compare us against comparable non-EU nations, which I have long suggested as the Canada, Australia and New Zealand (developed, western, English speaking, not the USA which is exceptionally big) then we have performed worse than those. You might wish to pick other comparable nations and see how we've compared, but its hard to find an exact match of course because every nation is unique in its own ways.

So the data to me suggests essentially that the economic performance is:
Non-EU > UK in EU > Eurozone

And not as many of those like Mr Meeks who've been making false predictions for decades suggest it would have been:
Non-EU < UK in EU < Eurozone

That to me suggests the data points to embracing the whole world and not bothering ourselves too much with the EU. Growth is coming in the whole world and we need to embrace that independently.

PS I used to be a Remainer. It was posters like Mr Tyndall, Casino_Royale as well as politicians like Gove and Johnson and looking at the economic data like this for myself which switched me during the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave. I think I might be the only PBer who changed sides DURING the EU referendum campaign, which I said at the time.

The Australian, NZ and Canadian economies are entirely different to the UK’s. That doesn’t change just because they speak English.

As I said there are no exact comparisons. They are very comparable though, the differences are much exaggerated, I have family in Canada and used to live in Melbourne. Melbourne isn't that different to cities in the UK.

Or you could look at continents. If the EU was doing great then Europe should have outgrown other continents. It hasn't been doing so though.

Mature economies will tend to grow less slowly than developing ones. That does not make them less important or successful.

The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all mature economies. They've all grown faster than the UK and faster than the EU.

Given the USA was already integrated, if the EU's integration was working then shouldn't the EU have grown faster than the USA? Instead its gone massively backwards. Why?

Stocky said:

IshmaelZ said:

I idly note that the BP share price is back to 1996 levels. That bursar chap may be wishing he had responded differently.

FTSE 100 back to 1998 levels. 22 years FFS.

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.

FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.

They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.

They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.

And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.

The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.

But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.

You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.

The analogy with smoking is fatuous.

The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.

If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.

So, you are saying it goes.

Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "

Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"

Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."

Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?

Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.

Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.

Sorry but that explanation does not pass the smell test.

Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.

Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?

Absurd.

Its in black and white.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869827/Coronavirus_action_plan_-_a_guide_to_what_you_can_expect_across_the_UK.pdf

Page 10 3.9• Delay: slow the spread in this country, if it does take hold, lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season

That's been pandemic advice for a century now. That doesn't mean the plan is to let it spread, the plan is actually saying the exact opposite of that!

The plan is specifically to slow the spread, not trying to stop the spread.

So the proposals everyone is making to try and eliminate any possible spread with travel restrictions, home working etc are not part of the UK govt plan because if they go hard now, then the chance of a second peak in the winter is higher.

No. 🙄

The plan is to stop the spread if possible, if its not possible to stop the spread then the plan is to delay the spread. Neither of that means the plan is to "let it spread a bit".

Its not possible to "eliminate any possible spread" because we aren't an isolationist, authoritarian backwater with no contact with the outside world.

What do you think Whitty means by this:

Pushing the peak of cases "further away from the winter pressures on the NHS" so that there was "more capacity to respond"

What actions can he take to make that happen? Building herd immunity by having a mild outbreak in spring (relatively, it will be horrible for many but better than what would happen otherwise next winter) is right at the top of the list.

I think he means delaying it from February/March and pushing it to the summer months. IE the opposite of "letting it spread".

He is speaking in March so very curious to be talking about February/March.

BluestBlue said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

CD13 said:

We've organised a family get-together at a big house in the middle of May. An English gathering of the clans. They will all come.

Well, the survivors will anyway.

It won't be over by then. The government's model is 95% of those that will contract it will do so over a 3 month period, which they have estimated will start about a month after the first sustained community transmission i.e. this week.

Get ready for 6 months of this.

Sorry, just to clarify - do you mean we're at the beginning of that 3-month period right now?

Endillion said:

In addition, there seems to me a strong possibility that the Japanese and Koreans are working on the basis that the rest of the world will manage to eliminate the virus within a few months. If that doesn't hold true, I wonder what their contingency plans are? Ban travel from everywhere with live ongoing cases for as long as necessary, to prevent reinfection?

YBarddCwsc said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Shakes head...

In Paris the show goes on, as smaller concert halls find creative ways to get round France’s ban on gatherings of more than 1,000 people. The US rock band Nada Surfgot got round the ban by playing the same Paris concert twice in one evening.

Young people are not going to self-isolate for 6 months with a large vat of industrial strength disinfectant.

Stocky said:

IshmaelZ said:

I idly note that the BP share price is back to 1996 levels. That bursar chap may be wishing he had responded differently.

FTSE 100 back to 1998 levels. 22 years FFS.

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.

FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.

They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.

They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.

And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.

The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.

But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.

You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.

The analogy with smoking is fatuous.

The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.

If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.

So, you are saying it goes.

Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "

Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"

Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."

Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?

Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.

Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.

Sorry but that explanation does not pass the smell test.

Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.

Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?

Absurd.

Its in black and white.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869827/Coronavirus_action_plan_-_a_guide_to_what_you_can_expect_across_the_UK.pdf

Page 10 3.9• Delay: slow the spread in this country, if it does take hold, lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season

That's been pandemic advice for a century now. That doesn't mean the plan is to let it spread, the plan is actually saying the exact opposite of that!

The plan is specifically to slow the spread, not trying to stop the spread.

So the proposals everyone is making to try and eliminate any possible spread with travel restrictions, home working etc are not part of the UK govt plan because if they go hard now, then the chance of a second peak in the winter is higher.

No. 🙄

The plan is to stop the spread if possible, if its not possible to stop the spread then the plan is to delay the spread. Neither of that means the plan is to "let it spread a bit".

Its not possible to "eliminate any possible spread" because we aren't an isolationist, authoritarian backwater with no contact with the outside world.

What do you think Whitty means by this:

Pushing the peak of cases "further away from the winter pressures on the NHS" so that there was "more capacity to respond"

What actions can he take to make that happen? Building herd immunity by having a mild outbreak in spring (relatively, it will be horrible for many but better than what would happen otherwise next winter) is right at the top of the list.

I think he means delaying it from February/March and pushing it to the summer months. IE the opposite of "letting it spread".

He is speaking in March so very curious to be talking about February/March.

The epidemic began then so no not really. He's talking about pushing away from this winter which is ending now.

YBarddCwsc said:

1. The science is absolutely not "educated guesswork".

2. You can construct a figure of merit that incorporates all of your priorities. Figures of merit are normally multivariate composite functions.

kinabalu said:

YBarddCwsc said:

1. The science is absolutely not "educated guesswork".

2. You can construct a figure of merit that incorporates all of your priorities. Figures of merit are normally multivariate composite functions.

Modelling the spread of a new disease is subject to significant uncertainty. To call it educated guesswork - or perhaps better highly educated guesswork - is not to diss it. It is scientific in nature and is an essential tool to manage this crisis. But it is not Boyle's law.

You can indeed build a composite single metric which blends your priorities, weighted as to relative importance, and perhaps that is being done. Nevertheless the key inputs to this - e.g. the weighting factors of, say, economic hit vs deaths vs NHS impact etc - will potentially have a political dimension.

Scott_xP said:

twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1238016923029430272

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

IshmaelZ said:

I idly note that the BP share price is back to 1996 levels. That bursar chap may be wishing he had responded differently.

FTSE 100 back to 1998 levels. 22 years FFS.

Though of course if you'd invested 22 years ago and held on since then without making any withdrawals you'd have still made money because of dividends.

Only if the dividend yield exceeded the rate of inflation

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1238016923029430272

DavidL said:

18 new cases in China today, over 1,200 recovered. Number of known cases down to 14,814. Almost certainly less than Italy will be later today.

noneoftheabove said:

Stocky said:

IshmaelZ said:

I idly note that the BP share price is back to 1996 levels. That bursar chap may be wishing he had responded differently.

FTSE 100 back to 1998 levels. 22 years FFS.

Not with dividends reinvested.

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.

FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.

They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.

They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.

And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.

The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.

But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.

You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.

The analogy with smoking is fatuous.

The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.

If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.

So, you are saying it goes.

Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "

Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"

Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."

Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?

Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.

Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.

Sorry but that explanation does not pass the smell test.

Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.

Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?

Absurd.

Its in black and white.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869827/Coronavirus_action_plan_-_a_guide_to_what_you_can_expect_across_the_UK.pdf

Page 10 3.9• Delay: slow the spread in this country, if it does take hold, lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season

Where in that does it say we should "let it spread a bit" ?
Not giving people what is sensible advice to self-isolate (and which they are thinking about... !) is doing the precise opposite of slowing the spread.

In contain the plan is prevent the disease spreading.
In delay the plan is slow the spread of the disease.

There is a reason those words are chosen, and the tactics in delay are used to slow not prevent the spreading. Slow involves spreading a bit.

No its an acknowledgement of reality, that containment has failed and can't succeed - not a choice not to contain.

To an extent obviously. Some viruses will get stopped in the contain phase.

The two stated main objectives of the delay phase are lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season.

The main way to push it away from the winter is by building herd immunity. That doesnt happen without some spreading.

IanB2 said:

Mount Everest is closed due to Corona virus!

noneoftheabove said:

Barnesian said:

noneoftheabove said:

Stocky said:

IshmaelZ said:

I idly note that the BP share price is back to 1996 levels. That bursar chap may be wishing he had responded differently.

FTSE 100 back to 1998 levels. 22 years FFS.

Not with dividends reinvested.

Average yield of FTSE 100 is now 4.8%.

Indeed. Im tempted to buy today, but still trying to process the increased chances of US-EU trade war and its impact on the longer term market following Trumps presser.

geoffw said:

IanB2 said:

Mount Everest is closed due to Corona virus!

That crowns it.

Stocky said:

IshmaelZ said:

I idly note that the BP share price is back to 1996 levels. That bursar chap may be wishing he had responded differently.

FTSE 100 back to 1998 levels. 22 years FFS.

noneoftheabove said:

Barnesian said:

noneoftheabove said:

Stocky said:

IshmaelZ said:

I idly note that the BP share price is back to 1996 levels. That bursar chap may be wishing he had responded differently.

FTSE 100 back to 1998 levels. 22 years FFS.

Not with dividends reinvested.

Average yield of FTSE 100 is now 4.8%.

Indeed. Im tempted to buy today, but still trying to process the increased chances of US-EU trade war and its impact on the longer term market following Trumps presser.

Mysticrose said:

I'm beginning to think the world's most irresponsible Government is that of the UK.

Iran runs it close but now even the US is starting to get its act together.

This has Dominic Cummings' hand all over it. A fuck-it policy of anarchy: we can't stop it so let it spread. Instead of 'Let them eat cake' it's 'Let them die.'

Sorry but there's no other way to dress this up.

IanB2 said:

Stocky said:

IshmaelZ said:

I idly note that the BP share price is back to 1996 levels. That bursar chap may be wishing he had responded differently.

FTSE 100 back to 1998 levels. 22 years FFS.

Yet the Dow is still holding onto a slice of the Trump boom. The US is where the selling opportunity is; their market still thinks the rest of the world's problems wont affect them much.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I expect thousands, if not millions, of our fellow citizens like my wife and I are self isolating due to our high risk, and others are working from home even before being asked

Furthermore, in our case we will not go to anywhere where people gather in numbers, have for years had our groceries delivered, and regularly hand wash for 20 seconds

These actions are sensible and neither of us are worrying about contracting covid 19 but do accept we could