Beyond that we still need more data on how (and where) the virus spreads. Bars and restaurants might be safe: hot food and alcohol; washed up plates and glasses. I think HMG was taken by surprise when the big chains closed their takeaway operations which were OK under the guidelines.
When I asked some years ago why all our office kitchens had dishwashers fitted, I was told that it is a H&S hygiene requirement that all commercial restaurants wash their dishes and cutlery at > 70c (i.e. too high for hand washing).
So the question is: is 70c enough?
Nope. Well not according to the piece I read a day or two ago. I may have even posted a link here. Researchers had to get to 90 degrees to kill the bastard iirc.
you did.
Longer report reproduced here, editing & bold is mine:
The new coronavirus can survive long exposure to high temperatures, according to an experiment by a team of French scientists.
Professor Remi Charrel and colleagues at the Aix-Marseille University in southern France heated the virus that causes Covid-19 to 60 degrees Celsius (140 Fahrenheit) for an hour and found that some strains were still able to replicate. The scientists had to bring the temperature to almost boiling point to kill the virus completely, according to their non-peer-reviewed paper released on bioRxiv.org on Saturday.
The team in France infected African green monkey kidney cells, a standard host material for viral activity tests, with a strain isolated from a patient in Berlin, Germany. The cells were loaded into tubes representing two different types of environments, one “clean” and the other “dirty” with animal proteins to simulate biological contamination in real-life samples, such as an oral swab.
After the heating, the viral strains in the clean environment were thoroughly deactivated. Some strains in the dirty samples, however, survived. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.
There had been hope that hotter weather, such as that in Singapore or northern hemisphere countries heading into summer, might reduce the spread of Covid-19. The heating process resulted in a clear drop in infectivity but enough living strains remained to be able to start another round of infection, said the paper.
The 60-degrees Celsius, hour-long protocol has been adapted in many testing labs to suppress a wide range of deadly viruses, including Ebola. For the new coronavirus, this temperature may be enough for samples with low viral loads because it could kill a large proportion of the strains. But it may be dangerous for samples with extremely high amounts of the virus, according to the researchers.
The French team found a higher temperature could help solve the problem. For instance, heating the samples to 92 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes rendered the virus completely inactive.
“The results presented in this study should help to choose the best suited protocol for inactivation in order to prevent exposure of laboratory personnel in charge of direct and indirect detection of Sars-CoV-2 for diagnostic purpose,” wrote the authors.
--- "it's a bit more complicated than that"
Combined with the news today from the WHO that there is so far no evidence that having the virus confers long term immunity, this has been a pretty rotten day for the fight against CV-19.
As I have said before many people seem to assume there will be a solution to this. There is no guarantee there will be.
We may just have to adapt to it being a part of life for several years to come as we get hit with new waves of it. Life will not fully return to pre-virus "normal" until an effective vaccine has been found and mass produced. That could easily be at least a couple of years away
I have assumed that that would be the case from the start. I have never been one of those who expected a vaccine inside a year. My concern going forward is that we might never find a vaccine and that even herd immunity is a pipe dream. Imagine a world where everyone knows that by the age of 70 at the latest they effectively have to isolate for the rest of their lives or run a very high risk they will catch this thing and die. The common cold but with far deadlier consequences.
There are alternatives to a vaccine or herd immunity. If an effective treatments can be found then even if you do catch it over age 70 then it needn’t be deadly. Indeed even now most who get it over that age have a better than 50% chance, and those odds can be improved further. So we have either a vaccine, herd immunity, an effective treatment, or squashing the virus now. I’m reasonably confident one of those will be achieved, likely the third one on current reporting, particularly on the Gilead antiviral trials. Based on media reports, the prospects for the first appear to me to be reasonable, as do the second but the fourth vanishingly small.
While I am less confident than some others on the prospects for a vaccine, the arguments on here that we have no vaccine common cold because it’s a Coronavirus are not strictly accurate. There are several hundred virus strains that cause the common cold and, according to the US CDC, the most common is a rhinovirus. I think the multiplicity of virus strains has more to do with the failure to find a vaccine against the common cold than the type of viruses that cause it. Do correct me me if I’m wrong.
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
Apart from the lying I could beat Boris every time.
It would be interesting Malc
There would be plenty of arse kicking G, that is for sure and Gove would be lucky to be allowed to sweep the streets.
Is this good news in terms of achieving herd immunity?
It might be. There is much dispute on Twitter over this report
It doesn't change the debate on herd immunity because it assumes a fatality rate of 1.4% - so the number of deaths required to achieve herd immunity are unchanged by this analysis.
What their analysis does imply is that, based on known delays between case identification and death, the UK likely already has enough infections to make 40,000 deaths unavoidable, and it could be that we are already destined to suffer 161,000 coronavirus deaths.
As is France.
Like I said earlier, it is probable that, in the end, large European nations will see death tolls in six figures. If we don’t get a vaccine or antivirals before 2022.
This will happen no matter what any country does. No country can lock down forever, and the maths of the coronavirus fatality rate is remorseless
Indeed but most of those will be over 70 and about half over 80, so it is the old we need to focus on protecting.
Under 50s have a mortality rate of less than 0.5% so outside the peak should get back to work unless they have a serious health condition
your right because they cant infect anyone else or take up hospital beds ...
Oh wait
As I have already said we should lockdown pre peak but no further, otherwise mass test and isolate the oldest
How many end up in ICU and also take up hospital beds ?
I have to say Big G you're as bad as I used to be with Corbyn. As somebody who's been there, I would advise just a tad of introspection might help. I say this respectfully.
And with respect I see no problem in trying to balance an outbreak of anti HMG from all sides with their own agendas
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
Perhaps it is time to switch over to ConHome to get a more balanced critique of the Government's Coronavirus programme.
Let us see how public opinion goes.
It shouldn't be about political point scoring.
When it is all over questions will need to be answered.
I agree 100% - but it is not all over, we are barely in the foothills
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
You astound me, @Big_G_NorthWales. And there was I expecting you to be Boris Johnson’s harshest critic.
I leave that to others, most who are remainers and Boris has upset them
Oh well, a few thousand dead people are a price you have to pay for your loyalty.
Ease up, Alastair. PB-ers are now losing parents, and it will probably get worse.
An effective treatment would be game changer and may be identified or developed before a vaccine. There are lots of lines of attack so let's strike a more optimistic note!
I have to say Big G you're as bad as I used to be with Corbyn. As somebody who's been there, I would advise just a tad of introspection might help. I say this respectfully.
And with respect I see no problem in trying to balance an outbreak of anti HMG from all sides with their own agendas
If balanced debate on how the Government has handled the Coronavirus crisis is off limits you are in the realms of Trumpland.
The time is clearly not right for a post-pandemic analysis, but the time will come.
I have to say Big G you're as bad as I used to be with Corbyn. As somebody who's been there, I would advise just a tad of introspection might help. I say this respectfully.
And with respect I see no problem in trying to balance an outbreak of anti HMG from all sides with their own agendas
If balanced debate on how the Government has handled the Coronavirus crisis is off limits you are in the realms of Trumpland.
The time is clearly not right for a post-pandemic analysis, but the time will come.
Is this good news in terms of achieving herd immunity?
It might be. There is much dispute on Twitter over this report
It doesn't change the debate on herd immunity because it assumes a fatality rate of 1.4% - so the number of deaths required to achieve herd immunity are unchanged by this analysis.
What their analysis does imply is that, based on known delays between case identification and death, the UK likely already has enough infections to make 40,000 deaths unavoidable, and it could be that we are already destined to suffer 161,000 coronavirus deaths.
As is France.
Like I said earlier, it is probable that, in the end, large European nations will see death tolls in six figures. If we don’t get a vaccine or antivirals before 2022.
This will happen no matter what any country does. No country can lock down forever, and the maths of the coronavirus fatality rate is remorseless
Indeed but most of those will be over 70 and about half over 80, so it is the old we need to focus on protecting.
Under 50s have a mortality rate of less than 0.5% so outside the peak should get back to work unless they have a serious health condition
your right because they cant infect anyone else or take up hospital beds ...
Oh wait
As I have already said we should lockdown pre peak but no further, otherwise mass test and isolate the oldest
How many end up in ICU and also take up hospital beds ?
Very few at the moment, hence we have multiple spare beds at the Nightingale and this is as we begin to move past the peak.
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
Perhaps it is time to switch over to ConHome to get a more balanced critique of the Government's Coronavirus programme.
Let us see how public opinion goes.
It shouldn't be about political point scoring.
When it is all over questions will need to be answered.
But I get a sense that some on the Left think there won't be any opportunity to stick the boot in when this is all over, so you know, fuck it, do it now....
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
Perhaps it is time to switch over to ConHome to get a more balanced critique of the Government's Coronavirus programme.
Let us see how public opinion goes.
It shouldn't be about political point scoring.
When it is all over questions will need to be answered.
I agree 100% - but it is not all over, we are barely in the foothills
With all due respect you come across as being partisan for the sake of being partisan.
Personally I am sticking by the government's handling, and I am not sure the time is right for The Times's expose of Government action/inaction in late February and early March.
The time will come, and from where I am sitting it might not be pretty.
@Mexicanpete Much agree although I have become concerned in recent days that anyone criticising the Government is being attacked.
We must be able to criticise the Government, it is absolutely essential. It is also essential to critique any criticism.
Personally it's refreshing to see Labour not being partisan for the sake of being partisan. I think they were right to call for an exit strategy, which the Tories now seem to tacitly agree with.
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
Perhaps it is time to switch over to ConHome to get a more balanced critique of the Government's Coronavirus programme.
Let us see how public opinion goes.
It shouldn't be about political point scoring.
When it is all over questions will need to be answered.
But I get a sense that some on the Left think there won't be any opportunity to stick the boot in when this is all over, so you know, fuck it, do it now....
There will certainly be a place for sensible criticism, something I hope Labour can now provide.
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
Perhaps it is time to switch over to ConHome to get a more balanced critique of the Government's Coronavirus programme.
Let us see how public opinion goes.
It shouldn't be about political point scoring.
When it is all over questions will need to be answered.
But I get a sense that some on the Left think there won't be any opportunity to stick the boot in when this is all over, so you know, fuck it, do it now....
One of the criticisms of Starmer is he has pretty well left the Government to their own devices.
I happen to think, for the moment at least, the Government should be supported, that is not to say NHS staff claiming to be poorly resourced in terms of testing and PPE haven't got every right to shout about it from the rooftops. There are plenty who will claim they are lying.
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
Perhaps it is time to switch over to ConHome to get a more balanced critique of the Government's Coronavirus programme.
Let us see how public opinion goes.
It shouldn't be about political point scoring.
When it is all over questions will need to be answered.
But I get a sense that some on the Left think there won't be any opportunity to stick the boot in when this is all over, so you know, fuck it, do it now....
One of the criticisms of Starmer is he has pretty well left the Government to their own devices.
I happen to think, for the moment at least, the Government should be supported, that is not to say NHS staff claiming to be poorly resourced in terms of testing and PPE haven't got every right to shout about it from the rooftops. There are plenty who will claim they are lying.
* One of the criticisms of Starmer by the cranky left
Is this good news in terms of achieving herd immunity?
It might be. There is much dispute on Twitter over this report
It doesn't change the debate on herd immunity because it assumes a fatality rate of 1.4% - so the number of deaths required to achieve herd immunity are unchanged by this analysis.
What their analysis does imply is that, based on known delays between case identification and death, the UK likely already has enough infections to make 40,000 deaths unavoidable, and it could be that we are already destined to suffer 161,000 coronavirus deaths.
As is France.
Like I said earlier, it is probable that, in the end, large European nations will see death tolls in six figures. If we don’t get a vaccine or antivirals before 2022.
This will happen no matter what any country does. No country can lock down forever, and the maths of the coronavirus fatality rate is remorseless
It looks to me like the deaths from the lockdown recession will also be in six figures. Figures from the Euro crisis in Greece show annual excess deaths of 15-20k per year. Adjusting for the UK's population indicates a death toll of 100-135k per year. It's difficult to see how the recession could be less severe if there is an intermittent lockdown into 2021 whilst a vaccine is sought.
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
Perhaps it is time to switch over to ConHome to get a more balanced critique of the Government's Coronavirus programme.
Let us see how public opinion goes.
It shouldn't be about political point scoring.
When it is all over questions will need to be answered.
But I get a sense that some on the Left think there won't be any opportunity to stick the boot in when this is all over, so you know, fuck it, do it now....
One of the criticisms of Starmer is he has pretty well left the Government to their own devices.
I happen to think, for the moment at least, the Government should be supported, that is not to say NHS staff claiming to be poorly resourced in terms of testing and PPE haven't got every right to shout about it from the rooftops. There are plenty who will claim they are lying.
* One of the criticisms of Starmer by the cranky left
I don't think that is necessarily true.
Anyone who seems to be critical of some part of the Government's handling of the pandemic, irrespective of political stripe are frustrated that Starmer hasn't been more vocal. For now I agree with Starmer.
I think in general the Government has probably done as well as it could have, except the clear failures on PPE and testing.
This seems to be in spite of Johnson, not because of him. But the effect seems to be the same.
The trouble is no-one was running the show. No Minister of Supply or Production was appointed, and then both Boris and Cummings, who'd centralised power at Number 10, left the scene leaving chaos behind. Although Raab was nominally in charge, it looks like everyone knew he wasn't really.
Politically, his own illness means Boris will escape blame.
Is this good news in terms of achieving herd immunity?
It might be. There is much dispute on Twitter over this report
It doesn't change the debate on herd immunity because it assumes a fatality rate of 1.4% - so the number of deaths required to achieve herd immunity are unchanged by this analysis.
What their analysis does imply is that, based on known delays between case identification and death, the UK likely already has enough infections to make 40,000 deaths unavoidable, and it could be that we are already destined to suffer 161,000 coronavirus deaths.
As is France.
Like I said earlier, it is probable that, in the end, large European nations will see death tolls in six figures. If we don’t get a vaccine or antivirals before 2022.
This will happen no matter what any country does. No country can lock down forever, and the maths of the coronavirus fatality rate is remorseless
Indeed but most of those will be over 70 and about half over 80, so it is the old we need to focus on protecting.
Under 50s have a mortality rate of less than 0.5% so outside the peak should get back to work unless they have a serious health condition
your right because they cant infect anyone else or take up hospital beds ...
Oh wait
As I have already said we should lockdown pre peak but no further, otherwise mass test and isolate the oldest
How many end up in ICU and also take up hospital beds ?
Very few at the moment, hence we have multiple spare beds at the Nightingale and this is as we begin to move past the peak.
err - we are locked down right now - you want that to change
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
Perhaps it is time to switch over to ConHome to get a more balanced critique of the Government's Coronavirus programme.
Let us see how public opinion goes.
It shouldn't be about political point scoring.
When it is all over questions will need to be answered.
I agree 100% - but it is not all over, we are barely in the foothills
With all due respect you come across as being partisan for the sake of being partisan.
Personally I am sticking by the government's handling, and I am not sure the time is right for The Times's expose of Government action/inaction in late February and early March.
The time will come, and from where I am sitting it might not be pretty.
I largely agree with that but most posters seem to be partisan to their cause, be it their party or brexit
And I will call out Boris when I consider it is fair but right now is not the time
I do think Matt Hancock has more of a problem, especially over his 100, 000 test promise
I sense a Remainer agenda in that Sunday Times article. A lot of comments about Brexit, some of them tellingly irrelevant
Nonetheless it is depressing that the UK would probably have been better off with me, paranoid and drunk, as the prime minister since early February.
The Sunday Times article also includes plenty of snide comments about the PM and seems to be largely sourced from an unnamed "Downing Street Adviser" who seems to be blaming the PM personally for the perceived errors in the government's response to the virus.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article it reads like a hatchet job.
Either he attended the Feb Cobra meetings or he didn't. Must be easy to verify one way or the other.
Not sure it matters - He had no immediate decision to make in Feb other than let the experts advise and gather stats
So as the worldwide situation deteriorated throughout February our PM didn't think it might be worth attending one of the Cobra meetings to find out for himself what the situation was. It's a view I suppose but it plays right into his reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with details.
Boris is the first PM in years to believe in delegation and to be honest in February it was a public health issue for the Health Minister, Matt Hancock
So much of this is hindsight and to be honest, I do not see any other politician, or party, having done any better
When it all comes out in the wash in years to come mistakes will be evidenced but not one person on this forum or outside could say that they would have done any better with any certainty
Perhaps it is time to switch over to ConHome to get a more balanced critique of the Government's Coronavirus programme.
Let us see how public opinion goes.
It shouldn't be about political point scoring.
When it is all over questions will need to be answered.
I agree 100% - but it is not all over, we are barely in the foothills
With all due respect you come across as being partisan for the sake of being partisan.
Personally I am sticking by the government's handling, and I am not sure the time is right for The Times's expose of Government action/inaction in late February and early March.
The time will come, and from where I am sitting it might not be pretty.
I largely agree with that but most posters seem to be partisan to their cause, be it their party or brexit
And I will call out Boris when I consider it is fair but right now is not the time
I do think Matt Hancock has more of a problem, especially over his 100, 000 test promise
Hancock could argue he was just being ambitious. When everything shakes down Hancock will have more problems explaining away his comments that NHS staff were uneconomical with their PPE.
Is this good news in terms of achieving herd immunity?
It might be. There is much dispute on Twitter over this report
It doesn't change the debate on herd immunity because it assumes a fatality rate of 1.4% - so the number of deaths required to achieve herd immunity are unchanged by this analysis.
What their analysis does imply is that, based on known delays between case identification and death, the UK likely already has enough infections to make 40,000 deaths unavoidable, and it could be that we are already destined to suffer 161,000 coronavirus deaths.
As is France.
Like I said earlier, it is probable that, in the end, large European nations will see death tolls in six figures. If we don’t get a vaccine or antivirals before 2022.
This will happen no matter what any country does. No country can lock down forever, and the maths of the coronavirus fatality rate is remorseless
Indeed but most of those will be over 70 and about half over 80, so it is the old we need to focus on protecting.
Under 50s have a mortality rate of less than 0.5% so outside the peak should get back to work unless they have a serious health condition
your right because they cant infect anyone else or take up hospital beds ...
Oh wait
As I have already said we should lockdown pre peak but no further, otherwise mass test and isolate the oldest
How many end up in ICU and also take up hospital beds ?
Very few at the moment, hence we have multiple spare beds at the Nightingale and this is as we begin to move past the peak.
err - we are locked down right now - you want that to change
Once we have passed the peak yes, then just control by mass testing and only lockdown again at the next peak.
@Mexicanpete Much agree although I have become concerned in recent days that anyone criticising the Government is being attacked.
We must be able to criticise the Government, it is absolutely essential. It is also essential to critique any criticism.
Personally it's refreshing to see Labour not being partisan for the sake of being partisan. I think they were right to call for an exit strategy, which the Tories now seem to tacitly agree with.
Any exit strategy has to come with a policy of telling the people the truth: Many tens of thousands will die, if we want to come out of lockdown.
I don’t believe the Labour Party has the wits and guts to do that. But they may prove me wrong.
Such remarks would have more credence if they came from someone not hiding out in a bunker full of handsanitiser and masks.
Personally, I think a gradual relaxation, probably regional initially, and specific to strands of the economy could apply from early May.
The time does need to be used productively, on research into better testing and treatment, and also acquisition of equipment and PPE.
The country also would need to be accustomed to deaths running into the hundreds every day. Those who speak of herd immunity are mostly keen on other people dying, not themselves or their kin.
The UK government (right or wrongly ) deliberately killed 25,000 in the fire bombing of Dresden in one night. Not sure why we are destroying the economy and kids lives to protect against a virus that will need to be got by a large amount of the population anyway before it goes away.
So recommendation is no precautions should be taken at all then?
well I get the trying to slow it to allow the NHS to not get overwhelmed to some extent and sensible social distancing measures are fine but schools need to open as to large parts of the economy as soon as possible . We will have an awful time coping with the poverty and inflation and depression that is coming becasue of this lockdown
Schools need to open.
So no social distancing at all then?
Well, the logical alternative to not re-opening the schools is to abolish them and legislate to force one parent or guardian to remain at home with a child until they reach the age of 18. We dig out some of the ideas from the last Labour manifesto - give every household free broadband and IT equipment - and then the children do all of their learning remotely. We establish a central educational institute for providing lessons in all the various specialisms, assign each child one tutor to counsel them and to check personally on their progress, make the remainder of the teaching profession redundant and sell all the schools off for housing, which would help to pay off some of the costs of dealing with the pandemic and release an enormous bank of brownfield land for development.
The first priority in all of this is to educate the children. If we then take it as read that we have no idea when we'll be able to abandon social distancing (and it could be years); that it is impossible to implement social distancing in the school environment; and that equipping every child and teacher with disposable full-body hazmat suits would result in an impossibly large requirement both for fresh PPE and the disposal of contaminated waste; then whatever solution to providing education that then remains, however radical, must be correct?
School's out forever it is, then.
That’s state schools. Independent schools would be face to face used by those who can afford them. That would go down well. Online learning is actually seen as a likely change in time but your idea of punishing parents for daring to have children would be a particularly hard sell.
On the other hand, we could just plan for schools to restart in September when we are likely to have testing, tracking and tracing setup and so we don’t have to spread PPE even further, which seems a lot easier. Better than having it used as a ritual sacrifice to the gods of whatever for no measurable gain.
There’s something to be said for changing the start of the school year to January, that would be an interesting idea. There is no real reason why we couldn’t have whatbwould have been the missed term starting in September and moving the start of the next year then.
Comments
While I am less confident than some others on the prospects for a vaccine, the arguments on here that we have no vaccine common cold because it’s a Coronavirus are not strictly accurate. There are several hundred virus strains that cause the common cold and, according to the US CDC, the most common is a rhinovirus. I think the multiplicity of virus strains has more to do with the failure to find a vaccine against the common cold than the type of viruses that cause it. Do correct me me if I’m wrong.
The time is clearly not right for a post-pandemic analysis, but the time will come.
This seems to be in spite of Johnson, not because of him. But the effect seems to be the same.
Since April 5 this thing has started behaving most oddly
Personally I am sticking by the government's handling, and I am not sure the time is right for The Times's expose of Government action/inaction in late February and early March.
The time will come, and from where I am sitting it might not be pretty.
We must be able to criticise the Government, it is absolutely essential. It is also essential to critique any criticism.
Personally it's refreshing to see Labour not being partisan for the sake of being partisan. I think they were right to call for an exit strategy, which the Tories now seem to tacitly agree with.
I happen to think, for the moment at least, the Government should be supported, that is not to say NHS staff claiming to be poorly resourced in terms of testing and PPE haven't got every right to shout about it from the rooftops. There are plenty who will claim they are lying.
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/1251593355060023302
As a result there is no chance that the lockdown recession could cause any deaths.
Anyone who seems to be critical of some part of the Government's handling of the pandemic, irrespective of political stripe are frustrated that Starmer hasn't been more vocal. For now I agree with Starmer.
Politically, his own illness means Boris will escape blame.
And I will call out Boris when I consider it is fair but right now is not the time
I do think Matt Hancock has more of a problem, especially over his 100, 000 test promise
ICU capacity only becomes an issue at the peak
Personally, I think a gradual relaxation, probably regional initially, and specific to strands of the economy could apply from early May.
The time does need to be used productively, on research into better testing and treatment, and also acquisition of equipment and PPE.
The country also would need to be accustomed to deaths running into the hundreds every day. Those who speak of herd immunity are mostly keen on other people dying, not themselves or their kin.
On the other hand, we could just plan for schools to restart in September when we are likely to have testing, tracking and tracing setup and so we don’t have to spread PPE even further, which seems a lot easier. Better than having it used as a ritual sacrifice to the gods of whatever for no measurable gain.
There’s something to be said for changing the start of the school year to January, that would be an interesting idea. There is no real reason why we couldn’t have whatbwould have been the missed term starting in September and moving the start of the next year then.
I am completely objective
You are partisan
He is an idiot mouthpiece.