politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s inadequate response to Covid-19 will doom his presiden

Floater said:

DAlexander said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

2) I .

So you are going to basically shut off Africa permanently? I am afraid this is pie in the sky stuff.

I am confident that they will be able to control the disease there eventually too.

But as I mentioned a corona virus test before boarding would have to be in place otherwise.

It isn't going to happen in the next decade if not longer. Not without herd immunity which is exactly what you are opposing.

If is a choice between multiple deaths for some with potentially life changing illness for the rest of us and having restrictions to travel to and from Africa for a decade then I would choose the latter, as I think would most people.

This is without considering that it could be us shut off from the outside world if we don't eliminate the disease.

You won't have that choice. Just as with Trump's idiotic fly ban on the EU, people will always find ways around it. And what about all the refugees? Are you going to start shooting them to stop them getting into Europe? (Note I am not making any claims on refugees being infected, just pointing out the obvious conclusions of your strategy)

As long as the virus is endemic somewhere in the world your strategy fails. We either need a vaccine or we need herd immunity. Those are the only two ways we are going to ever get back to anything approaching normal life.

Give people a CV test from infected areas before travelling. It's perfectly possible.

Pay to set up safe areas for refugees next to the countries they are fleeing from. Something that should have been done years ago.
If not we can have quarantined areas set up here for exactly that purpose.

Herd immunity is useless once the virus mutates, which it will.

It's not 'useless', and you're awfully opinionated for someone on their 5th post.

Well I am happy to be corrected, but my limited understanding it that with viruses you only gain an immunity to one strain and when it mutates you can still get infected. So like the flu for example.

I didn't realise there was a threshold for posts before opinions are encouraged.

Your last sentence did make me laugh out loud

It's certainly an interesting take that you need to reach a certain post threshold before you can express an opinion.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

OldKingCole said:

I'm told that China is re-opening. Even Hubei/Wuhan

a) they need to get the economy moving again (and there is going to be a huge demand for things like medical supplies, which cynically big business to be had and from a humanitarian perspective to try and help save as many people as possible).

b) they are now in full propaganda mode, the great leader, the party, the nation have defeated this disease.

Which is when they will be at their greatest risk. As will true information on whether this fires back up again. If they claim it hasn't, will that put pressure on Boris to change tactics?

I am not sure the British public will accept an app that spies on your every movement and exclude you from society if the AI says you are a potential carrier.

RochdalePioneers said:

eristdoof said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eristdoof said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

brokenwheel said:

We are in the middle of a profound crisis and PB is debating Sky Sports subscriptions.

Never change PB.

Just another issue in a never ending line of them

Nothing is going to be the same post covid 19

WFH will become the norm for many,

Many companies will have been forced over the technology hurdle for employees to work at home and will embrace it afterwards. I supsect that many other companies will look at their drop in productivity in the next month and use that as an argument against it. How honest they will be about productivity lost to skyving, and how much to the economic hit of the crisis is another matter.

I also worry about companies starting to insist that employees work much more at home, and these employees feel forced into turning a spare room into a work room, or to rent a 2 bedroom flat rather than a 1 bedroom flat, or devoting 4 square meters of their shared house bedroom to their work. I made the conscious choice to rent a flat with a room I can call an office, in part beause I can afford to. Many others are not in a position to do that, especially in SE England where rents and house prices are so high.

All my colleagues who regularly WFH have turned bedrooms, garages or sheds into offices.

As I say many of us choose to turn a bedroom into an office etc. However, a 23 year old with a modest bedroom in a 4 person shared house will find it much more of a burden to work 20+ hours at home than a 55 year old whose eldest daughter graduated last year.

Buy shares in Regus. Business will at the very least be highly tempted to reduce corporate office space after this. But teams will still need to meet, individuals like you describe will want to work not just at home...

JM1 said:

DAlexander said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

2) I .

So you are going to basically shut off Africa permanently? I am afraid this is pie in the sky stuff.

I am confident that they will be able to control the disease there eventually too.

But as I mentioned a corona virus test before boarding would have to be in place otherwise.

It isn't going to happen in the next decade if not longer. Not without herd immunity which is exactly what you are opposing.

If is a choice between multiple deaths for some with potentially life changing illness for the rest of us and having restrictions to travel to and from Africa for a decade then I would choose the latter, as I think would most people.

This is without considering that it could be us shut off from the outside world if we don't eliminate the disease.

You won't have that choice. Just as with Trump's idiotic fly ban on the EU, people will always find ways around it. And what about all the refugees? Are you going to start shooting them to stop them getting into Europe? (Note I am not making any claims on refugees being infected, just pointing out the obvious conclusions of your strategy)

As long as the virus is endemic somewhere in the world your strategy fails. We either need a vaccine or we need herd immunity. Those are the only two ways we are going to ever get back to anything approaching normal life.

Give people a CV test from infected areas before travelling. It's perfectly possible.

Pay to set up safe areas for refugees next to the countries they are fleeing from. Something that should have been done years ago.
If not we can have quarantined areas set up here for exactly that purpose.

Herd immunity is useless once the virus mutates, which it will.

It's not 'useless', and you're awfully opinionated for someone on their 5th post.

Well I am happy to be corrected, but my limited understanding it that with viruses you only gain an immunity to one strain and when it mutates you can still get infected. So like the flu for example.

I didn't realise there was a threshold for posts before opinions are encouraged.

The virus does mutate (indeed RNA viruses mutate very rapidly), but at least some of the antibodies you have built up as a result of the first exposure will help temper the response to subsequent incidences if you are exposed to a similar strain in future. Without this, we would all succumb to a serious bout of flu every year.

noneoftheabove said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Buy shares in Regus. Business will at the very least be highly tempted to reduce corporate office space after this. But teams will still need to meet, individuals like you describe will want to work not just at home...

Have looked at using Regus a few times in the past but they are very much more expensive than smaller similar firms for little or no benefit. They seem busy though so works for them I guess.

OldKingCole said:

Have been sent a document, 'Temperature and latitude analysis to predict potential spread and seasonality for COVID-19', produced by a team led from the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

The abstract reads:A significant number of infectious diseases display seasonal patterns in their incidence, including human coronaviruses. We hypothesize that SARS-CoV-2 does as well. To date, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has established significant community spread in cities and regions only along a narrow east west distribution roughly along the 30-50 N” corridor at consistently similar weather patterns (5-11OC and 47-79% humidity). There has been a lack of significant community establishment in expected locations that are based only on population proximity and extensive population interaction through travel. We have proposed a simplified model that shows a zone at increased risk for COVID-19 spread. Using weather modeling, it may be possible to predict the regions most likely to be at higher risk of significant community spread of COVID-19 in the upcoming weeks, allowing for concentration of public health efforts on surveillance and containment.

Seems to explain why Singapore and Thailand are doing quite well, although Malaysia has more cases, apparently all related to the one gathering.

If anyone's interested I can send a link.

noneoftheabove said:

isam said:

Benpointer said:

MarqueeMark said:

So National League footie still goes ahead?

Maybe not:

https://twitter.com/khfcofficial/status/1238751797902262272?s=20

Surprised Sky Sports haven’t bought the rights to the last week of the Pakistan Super League Cricket.

Sky 732 might be in your normal subscription.

alex_ said:

noneoftheabove said:

isam said:

Benpointer said:

MarqueeMark said:

So National League footie still goes ahead?

Maybe not:

https://twitter.com/khfcofficial/status/1238751797902262272?s=20

Surprised Sky Sports haven’t bought the rights to the last week of the Pakistan Super League Cricket.

Sky 732 might be in your normal subscription.

It is!!!! Normally can't stand the T20 stuff but... and you can bet on it

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1238763481714888704

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1238763481714888704

Time for the West to stand up to the Chinese Communist government

Luckyguy1983 said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

2) I .

So you are going to basically shut off Africa permanently? I am afraid this is pie in the sky stuff.

I am confident that they will be able to control the disease there eventually too.

But as I mentioned a corona virus test before boarding would have to be in place otherwise.

It isn't going to happen in the next decade if not longer. Not without herd immunity which is exactly what you are opposing.

If is a choice between multiple deaths for some with potentially life changing illness for the rest of us and having restrictions to travel to and from Africa for a decade then I would choose the latter, as I think would most people.

This is without considering that it could be us shut off from the outside world if we don't eliminate the disease.

You won't have that choice. Just as with Trump's idiotic fly ban on the EU, people will always find ways around it. And what about all the refugees? Are you going to start shooting them to stop them getting into Europe? (Note I am not making any claims on refugees being infected, just pointing out the obvious conclusions of your strategy)

As long as the virus is endemic somewhere in the world your strategy fails. We either need a vaccine or we need herd immunity. Those are the only two ways we are going to ever get back to anything approaching normal life.

Give people a CV test from infected areas before travelling. It's perfectly possible.

Pay to set up safe areas for refugees next to the countries they are fleeing from. Something that should have been done years ago.
If not we can have quarantined areas set up here for exactly that purpose.

Herd immunity is useless once the virus mutates, which it will.

It's not 'useless', and you're awfully opinionated for someone on their 5th post.

JM1 said:

DAlexander said:

Well that is somewhat reassuring, but are they certain corona viruses behave in the same way as for example flu in this manner?

I believe with dengue fever it is actually more dangerous to have developed one immunity as it actively impedes recovery from different strains as your body gets tricked into producing the wrong cells to fight the disease.

I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1238763481714888704

Time for the West to stand up to the Chinese Communist government

DAlexander said:

So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.

Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?

Nigelb said:

DAlexander said:

JM1 said:

I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).

So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.

Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?

There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble.
Though to be fair so do the alternatives.

Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.

DAlexander said:

Nigelb said:

DAlexander said:

JM1 said:

I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).

So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.

Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?

There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble.
Though to be fair so do the alternatives.

Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.

It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.

Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

HYUFD said:

Floater said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

Agreed but China is the epicentre of this

Europe is the epicentre according to the WHO.

And indeed according to an even higher authority - President Donald Trump himself.

It started in China not Europe and China still has most cases

China has less current cases than just Italy if the figures are correct

Wrong, China still has 4 times the cases of Italy

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Current cases, he said.

Nigelb said:

RobD said:

DAlexander said:

Nigelb said:

DAlexander said:

JM1 said:

I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).

So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.

Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?

There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble.
Though to be fair so do the alternatives.

Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.

It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.

Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.

What is your opinion based on?

And yours ?

NickPalmer said:

Gadfly said:

Mrs Gadfly and I are both in our 60s with underlying chronic health issues and our 3 teacher children are entirely reliant upon us to look after our pre-school grandchildren whilst they're at work.

We are in an incredibly difficult position.

Sympathies - that's really difficult. Without knowing the details it's hard to advise, but have you considered all the otherwise unthinkable options? Might the kids be OK on their own in the parents' homes, with your number to call if they get in difficulty? A lot of kids are much more capable than people think. Might the schools accept your children having emergency days off in rotation? Or, and I don't like saying this, could they pull sickies for a few days each?

Dura_Ace said:

My wife has closed her practice down and is home all day so I'm basically living in the workshop*. After a great deal of thought and analysis I am ready to announce my Covid-19 celebrity death pool entries:

Barry Humphries (he's about 1,000 years old but is highly sociable)
Camilla (shakes 100 hands/day and smokes 200 fags/day)
David Mitchell (wildcard/wishful thinking)

Alistair said:

nichomar said:

Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.

In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

nichomar said:

Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.

In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes

The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.


*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.

Dura_Ace said:

My wife has closed her practice down and is home all day so I'm basically living in the workshop. After a great deal of thought and analysis I am ready to announce my Covid-19 celebrity death pool entries:

Barry Humphries (he's about 1,000 years old but is highly sociable)
Camilla (shakes 100 hands/day and smokes 200 fags/day)
David Mitchell (wildcard/wishful thinking)

alex_ said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

nichomar said:

Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.

In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes

The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.


*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.

And, as observed above, I came in close contact with far more people than I probably would going to a 50k football match.

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

nichomar said:

Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.

In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes

The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.


*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.

Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?

Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

nichomar said:

Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.

In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes

The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.


*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.

Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?

Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.

And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.

Nigelb said:

Dura_Ace said:

My wife has closed her practice down and is home all day so I'm basically living in the workshop*. After a great deal of thought and analysis I am ready to announce my Covid-19 celebrity death pool entries:

Barry Humphries (he's about 1,000 years old but is highly sociable)
Camilla (shakes 100 hands/day and smokes 200 fags/day)
David Mitchell (wildcard/wishful thinking)

Resisting the temptation to play for now.

*Doesn’t she allow you in the house ?

DAlexander said:

RobD said:

DAlexander said:

Nigelb said:

DAlexander said:

JM1 said:

I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).

So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.

Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?

There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble.
Though to be fair so do the alternatives.

Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.

It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.

Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.

What is your opinion based on?

It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:

The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.

Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).

If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).

If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

nichomar said:

Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.

In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes

The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.


*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.

Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?

Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.

And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.

I'd be more worried about the pin pad.

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

nichomar said:

Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.

In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes

The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.


*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.

Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?

Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.

And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.

You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.

HYUFD said:

Wrong, China still has 4 times the cases of Italy

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

RobD said:

DAlexander said:

RobD said:

DAlexander said:

Nigelb said:

DAlexander said:

JM1 said:

I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).

So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.

Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?

There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble.
Though to be fair so do the alternatives.

Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.

It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.

Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.

What is your opinion based on?

It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:

The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.

Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).

If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).

If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.

Perhaps the view of the advisors is that delay is impossible, or risks moving the peak of the outbreak into the winter?

The third wave statement confused me. I think that's referring to an additional wave after lockdown restrictions are removed, rather than talking about seasonality? But I may have misinterpreted what you wrote.

Nigelb said:

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

nichomar said:

Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.

In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes

The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.


*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.

Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?

Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.

And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.

You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.

It’s a bit like the herd behaviour before Christmas, except this time there was still fresh sage on the shelves.
(From Italy, incidentally.)

felix said:

Sebastian Payne
@SebastianEPayne
·
15m
He didn’t say that and it’s dangerous to spread lies in a national crisis
😡
. This tweet should be deleted immediately.
Quote Tweet
Carole Cadwalladr
@carolecadwalla
· 17h
Director of World Health Organisation: Britain’s strategy is ‘wrong & dangerous’

https://theguardian.com/world/2020/mar


Both she and her 'newspaper' are pond life scum!

Malmesbury said:

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

nichomar said:

Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.

In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes

The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.


*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.

Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?

Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.

And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.

You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.

An actually intelligent idea would be to cook and freeze home made meals. That way, if/when you get ill, the microwave will be your friend.

Barnesian said:

Malmesbury said:

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

nichomar said:

Just back from the supermarket, plenty of bog rolls but no potatoes, most tinned soup gone all prepacked fresh meat And a few other odd shortages but we won’t run out of wine in Spain.

In my local supermarket all the potatoes were gone apart from the loose premium (I.e. Still have a bit of soil on them) potatoes

The supermarkets today aren't running out of stuff (other than bog roll, pasta* and sanitiser) because of stockpiling. It's because it appears the world and his wife couldn't think of anything else to do on a Saturday morning. There must have been 50% more at least there this morning (a large Sainsburys) than normal. A hell of a lot of the fresh food was empty.


*And they weren't actually "running out", you just had to go round 3 times to time arrival with them refilling the shelves from their stores.

Are these the same people screaming on twitter that the government are trying to kill us and should be stopping sporting events and closing schools?

Not sure - they would have to drag themselves away from twitter and pb.com.

And going for the fresh food? That stuff that everybody will have touched and won't last if the system does break down.

You'll notice my point above saying that this wasn't stockpiling. Just higher numbers than usual. Possibly because the online shopping isn't geared up to take the strain. So no choice but to revert to traditional shopping methods.

An actually intelligent idea would be to cook and freeze home made meals. That way, if/when you get ill, the microwave will be your friend.

That's what I have done. I have about 30 home made meals in the freezer. Spag bol, thick chicken stew, thai green curry. Plus a large iberica ham which will last another 10 days, washed down with ice cold fino. Plenty of spaghetti and rice. Feeling fine on day five. Just missing the exercise and fresh air.

alex_ said:

DAlexander said:

RobD said:

DAlexander said:

Nigelb said:

DAlexander said:

JM1 said:

I'm not a virologist or immunologist (although do interact daily with colleagues who are) so not best placed to give a definitive answer. However, it's not necessarily the case that a mutation will make the virus more virulent. History suggests that this iteration is pretty nasty so the goal might be to protect against future infection by this, or a similar pathogen. Interestingly, previous coronavirus infections have resulted in evolution of the pathogen whereby it becomes less virulent as it adapts to the host (there was an interesting paper from NUS-Duke on this yesterday).

So if this is expected to be the nastiest form of the disease, then I don't see the logic in allowing most people to catch it to help protect against milder newer strains later on.

Why not take policies to limit the spread until milder strains are found in other countries and use one of those to help protect the population here?

There are all sorts of ways in which the current policy represents a gamble.
Though to be fair so do the alternatives.

Various ‘experts’ (and until after this is over, there are no real experts on this pandemic) disagree on the relative odds.

It seems like an enormous gamble with too many unknowns currently.

Even a policy of delaying until we know a bit more about the disease would be worthwhile in my opinion.

What is your opinion based on?

It's based on the unknowns we have currently, such as:

The long term effects of the disease or even if you can recover completely.

Whether China's policy will work or not (they are opening up again now, so we should get some data soon).

If it is seasonal like flu and if there will be a second wave (the ex-head of the WHO was saying there is no evidence for this).

If or when a vaccine or treatment can be developed, meaning delaying the spread might save a lot of lives.

The Government's policy isn't based on killing large numbers of people this summer. It explicitly isn't. It is relying on large numbers of people catching the virus. But generally those who will survive it, and during a period when the NHS has capacity. There is no "precautionary" approach on this. If treatments and/or vaccines were advanced by winter then we will still benefit from it. We will still be trying to build in extra winter capacity.

But we hopefully will have an added advantage of a measure of herd immunity. It is just wrong to suggest that the risks are all on the Government approach.

And if it does look like even under the current approach the NHS can't cope in summer there will no doubt be a ramping up of clamp down measures.

RobD said:

felix said:

Sebastian Payne
@SebastianEPayne
·
15m
He didn’t say that and it’s dangerous to spread lies in a national crisis
😡
. This tweet should be deleted immediately.
Quote Tweet
Carole Cadwalladr
@carolecadwalla
· 17h
Director of World Health Organisation: Britain’s strategy is ‘wrong & dangerous’

https://theguardian.com/world/2020/mar


Both she and her 'newspaper' are pond life scum!

Why am I not surprised she is spreading fake news on this?

SandyRentool said:

OK, this thing about experts giving different advice. What could be behind this is that they are being asked different questions.

WHO and various governments are asking 'How do we minimise the spread?'

UK government is asking 'How do we minimise the economic impact?'

DAlexander said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DAlexander said:

2) I .

So you are going to basically shut off Africa permanently? I am afraid this is pie in the sky stuff.

I am confident that they will be able to control the disease there eventually too.

But as I mentioned a corona virus test before boarding would have to be in place otherwise.

It isn't going to happen in the next decade if not longer. Not without herd immunity which is exactly what you are opposing.

If is a choice between multiple deaths for some with potentially life changing illness for the rest of us and having restrictions to travel to and from Africa for a decade then I would choose the latter, as I think would most people.

This is without considering that it could be us shut off from the outside world if we don't eliminate the disease.

You won't have that choice. Just as with Trump's idiotic fly ban on the EU, people will always find ways around it. And what about all the refugees? Are you going to start shooting them to stop them getting into Europe? (Note I am not making any claims on refugees being infected, just pointing out the obvious conclusions of your strategy)

As long as the virus is endemic somewhere in the world your strategy fails. We either need a vaccine or we need herd immunity. Those are the only two ways we are going to ever get back to anything approaching normal life.

Give people a CV test from infected areas before travelling. It's perfectly possible.

Pay to set up safe areas for refugees next to the countries they are fleeing from. Something that should have been done years ago.
If not we can have quarantined areas set up here for exactly that purpose.

Herd immunity is useless once the virus mutates, which it will.

It's not 'useless', and you're awfully opinionated for someone on their 5th post.

Well I am happy to be corrected, but my limited understanding it that with viruses you only gain an immunity to one strain and when it mutates you can still get infected. So like the flu for example.
Loo
I didn't realise there was a threshold for posts before opinions are encouraged.