Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

davedanon

davedanon wrote: »

This piece seems authoritative. It clearly notes the input of Halpern and the Behavioural Science 'Nudge Unit'. 47 million people would need to be infected, and there could be more than a million deaths. Can Boris live with that body count?

http://theconversation.com/coronavirus-can-herd-immunity-really-protect-us-133583

So what is the solution, as you clearly know more than the U.K’s chief medical officer.

Will hiding in our homes and hoping it all goes away work? What happens when the kids all go back to school, of do we keep them at home indefinitely?

CelticRambler

McGiver wrote: »

"Herd immunity" nonsense was disputed by leading experts at Lancet and other organisations.

"Herd immunity" is not nonsense. There's just not enough information available at the moment about this virus variant to make reliable predictions concerning its behaviour.

On this point, I find myself more on theo's side of the fence. If "we" (i.e. the anonymous overlords of the human community) were serious about controlling the disease, we'd do exactly what the world's veterinary services do when something like this rears its head: impose draconian movement restrictions, cull every affected individual and all the in-contact individuals within the control zone. If the Chinese had done that, "we" (the people of the Internet) would have cried blue murder ... and had nothing to worry about here in the West.

But there isn't a government in the world - not even in China - that wants to exercise real control over a disease like this, so "we" (the people of the world) have to put up with a hodge-podge of half-hearted measures, heavily influenced by political considerations.

We know now that the most vulnerable demographic (regardless of creed or colour) is, quelle surprise, the most vulnerable by every other metric - older people with pre-existing health concerns, i.e. those that already gobble up an enormous and disproportionate amount of healthcare resources. If children and young adults are not going to be seriously affected, then it makes no sense to disrupt their whole lives to protect people who are going to die sooner rather than later. If, as seems to be the case, "we" (whoever makes these kinds of moral judgements) are determined to prolong the lives of people with defective immune systems for no reason other than to keep spending taxpayers' money on keeping them alive as long as possible, then put them into quarantine and let the virus spread innocuously throughout the rest of the population.

The German statement three days ago was not that different to the UK's.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/world/europe/coronavirus-merkel-germany.html

BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel is on her way out and her power is waning, but in her typically low-key, no-nonsense manner, the German leader on Wednesday laid out some cold, hard facts on the coronavirus in a way that few other leaders have.

Two in three Germans may become infected, Ms. Merkel said at a news conference that reverberated far beyond her country. There is no immunity now against the virus and no vaccine yet. It spreads exponentially, and the world now faces a pandemic.

The most important thing, the chancellor said, is to slow down the spread of the coronavirus to win time for people to develop immunity, and to prevent the health care system from becoming overwhelmed.

“We have to understand that many people will be infected,” Ms. Merkel said. “The consensus among experts is that 60 to 70 percent of the population will be infected as long as this remains the situation.”

Ms. Merkel’s estimates were probably a worst-case scenario, though not wildly out of line with those of experts outside Germany.

this is the simple fact of the matter and if the German and UK governments are guilty of anything, it is being too honest with the people.

AllForIt

You would have though that world health organizations and governments would have internationally agreed on how to deal with pandemics in advance of them happening in this day and age.

AllForIt

AllForIt wrote: »

You would have though that world health organizations and governments would have internationally agreed on how to deal with pandemics in advance of them happening in this day and age.

they all do have plans, but different ones and then you have governments that do things because they make the population fell easier, like shutting borders, rather than doing them for scientific reasons.

fly_agaric

AllForIt wrote: »

You would have though that world health organizations and governments would have internationally agreed on how to deal with pandemics in advance of them happening in this day and age.

I don't think that is possible.
We're a very long way from "one world government" I suppose, on any issue (even shared crises).
Also what is correct for one country might not be correct for another. The varying nature of diseases themselves must influence the response made too?

Even with austerity, I think UKs health service & public sector may be better placed than ours and has more capability to respond to this. They also (again despite austerity and pressures of war) have a large and experienced military to call on if needed.

I'm assuming they could cope with a far higher number of serious cases than we can without collapsing their health service or badly straining their public sector in general.

However they could be making a mistake with the strategy and overestimating their ability to deal with it, but of course I'm no expert and what they are doing is apparently following their own expert scientific advice.

This does disagree with what other experts in the EU & WHO, most other European countries etc think is the correct approach (i.e. who we are looking to) & if it goes wrong for them in the next few weeks we are on the front line of it too unfortunately.

Nate--IRL--

This is well worth a read, as to the consequences of delaying social distancing. The UK is playing with fire in a room full of petrol.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

Nate

swampgas

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

This is well worth a read, as to the consequences of delaying social distancing. The UK is playing with fire in a room full of petrol.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

Nate

That's an excellent if sobering read.

McGiver

CelticRambler wrote:

"Herd immunity" is not nonsense. There's just not enough information available at the moment about this virus variant to make reliable predictions concerning its behaviour.

Herd immunity is a nonsense in this context. It's related to vaccination where certain percentage of vaccinated protect the rest of the unvaccinated population, and typically it's a very high percentage depending on the pathogen.

The current situation with covid-19 is not analogous.

McGiver

McGiver wrote: »

Herd immunity is a nonsense in this context. It's related to vaccination where certain percentage of vaccinated protect the rest of the unvaccinated population, and typically it's a very high percentage depending on the pathogen.

The current situation with covid-19 is not analogous.

You have to love the internet. Everyone knows better tha everyone else.

McGiver

Aegir wrote:

You have to love the internet. Everyone knows better tha everyone else.

Including yourself.

CelticRambler

McGiver wrote: »

Herd immunity is a nonsense in this context. It's related to vaccination where certain percentage of vaccinated protect the rest of the unvaccinated population, and typically it's a very high percentage depending on the pathogen.

Remind me, would you: how does vaccination work again? :rolleyes:

What's most relevant in this context (IMO) is that Covid-19 has demonstrated that (a) Britain is an integral part of Europe and the European economic eco-system [see crippling effect on British Airways of Trump's anti-Schengen decision] ; and (b) despite all the nationalist jingoism we've heard from those of a Blue persuasion, the British attitude towards health and society is far more closely aligned with continental Europe than that of the US.

I reckon the shambles in the States surrounding the development of their own "Made in America" tests (#takebackcontrol), the enormous cost of getting tested, and the eejitery of the Pumpkin-in-Chief will be something that sticks in people's minds when it comes to negotiating aspects of the NHS as part of the Greatest Trade Deal Ever.

McGiver

Aegir wrote:

Can you provide a link?

"The UK government—Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson—claim they are following the science. But that is not true. The evidence is clear. We need urgent implementation of social distancing and closure policies. The government is playing roulette with the public. This is a major error."

Richard Charles Horton, FRCP, FMedSci, present editor-in-chief of The Lancet

https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1237282270685380613?s=19

davedanon

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

This is well worth a read, as to the consequences of delaying social distancing. The UK is playing with fire in a room full of petrol.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

Nate

Thanks. It's terrifying, but thanks. The very last bit about how delaying even ONE DAY can result in exponentially-worse results especially so. And the Brits are waiting a whole week before escalating their response....

McGiver

McGiver wrote: »

"The UK government—Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson—claim they are following the science. But that is not true. The evidence is clear. We need urgent implementation of social distancing and closure policies. The government is playing roulette with the public. This is a major error."

Richard Charles Horton, FRCP, FMedSci, present editor-in-chief of The Lancet

https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1237282270685380613?s=19

No mention of herd immunity there.

So, do you have anything to back up your statement?

davedanon

Aegir wrote: »

So what is the solution, as you clearly know more than the U.K’s chief medical officer.

Will hiding in our homes and hoping it all goes away work? What happens when the kids all go back to school, of do we keep them at home indefinitely?

This is so typical of your right-wing mindset. "Ok then, what's your solution, if you're so clever." I clearly haven't made that claim. Whitty and the rest of them seem very capable. What I worry about is the influence which the Nudge Unit seems to wield. Johnson and his mob have zero credibility and track record when it comes to being honest injuns and taking expert advice. They are ideologues.

Interesting language you use there. "Hiding in our homes". That's sort of telling. Are you implying there's some sort of blitz spirit "get out there and take it on the chin" approach that you would prefer?

And there's the old reductio ad absurdum re closing the schools...."this might be a good thing, but we can't keep it up for ever, so let's not do it at all".

Is this all you've got?

davedanon

davedanon wrote: »

This is so typical of your right-wing mindset. "Ok then, what's your solution, if you're so clever." I clearly haven't made that claim. Whitty and the rest of them seem very capable. What I worry about is the influence which the Nudge Unit seems to wield. Johnson and his mob have zero credibility and track record when it comes to being honest injuns and taking expert advice. They are ideologues.

Interesting language you use there. "Hiding in our homes". That's sort of telling. Are you implying there's some sort of blitz spirit "get out there and take it on the chin" approach that you would prefer?

And there's the old reductio ad absurdum re closing the schools...."this might be a good thing, but we can't keep it up for ever, so let's not do it at all".

Is this all you've got?

Oh my god. Right wing mindset indeed.

The U.K. will close schools, but as Nicola Sturgeon made very clear, the belief is that this needs to be done at the right time and that is not yet.

Angela Merkel made it clear that as there is no vaccine and no immunity, it is likely that 70% of the population will get this in some form. She is talking about herd immunity.

So we have the German and Scottish leaders saying pretty much the same thing as Boris, yet you reserve all your wrath for the Conservative party.

Why is that?

coastwatch

Will the British government survive the effects of this virus?
The "herd immunity" strategy will result in a completely overwhelmed NHS, unable to cope with the numbers needing intensive care treatment, just like Italy now.
The NHS health workers will be constantly forced to make decisions on who gets treatment and who is left to die.
How long will the British public accept that?

fash

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yeah, but yeah, but did someone not just simply explain to those people that they should have just gotten herd immunity and not be dying?

They are the acceptable losses.

coastwatch

coastwatch wrote: »

Will the British government survive the effects of this virus?
The "heard immunity" strategy will result in a completely overwhelmed NHS, unable to cope with the numbers needing intensive care treatment, just like Italy now.
The NHS health workers will be constantly forced to make decisions on who gets treatment and who is left to die.
How long will the British public accept that?

Where did this bollocks about the U.K. having a herd immunity strategy come from? Was it the fact that herd immunity was discussed around the same time and it confused people?

What exactly do people think delay means? Delay until what exactly?

coastwatch

Aegir wrote: »

Where did this bollocks about the U.K. having a herd immunity strategy come from? Was it the fact that herd immunity was discussed around the same time and it confused people?

What exactly do people think delay means? Delay until what exactly?

Great question, and point well made, but here's a link, worth a read, ( not "bollocks").
Do you have a better analysis? Please do share

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/herd-immunity-will-the-uks-coronavirus-strategy-work

coastwatch

coastwatch wrote: »

Great question, and point well made, but here's a link, worth a read, ( not "bollocks").
Do you have a better analysis? Please do share

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/herd-immunity-will-the-uks-coronavirus-strategy-work

Nice opinion piece from the Guardian, but that doesn’t explain where the notion came from that this is the governments strategy.

Viruses don’t just get bored and decide to go home, they continue to spread and will only stop when there is a vaccine or enough people have immunity to stop the spread. That is the reality.

The delay phase is basically all about slowing down the numbers so that the health service can cope. This will be different for different countries and needs to be implemented at the right time, at least that is the logic. The U.K. experts opinion seems to be that for the U.K., the time is not right to implement school closures. They have not said they won’t, just when they gave the announcement, the conclusion of COBRA was not yet.

One very telling thing for me, is that the SNP seem to be fully on board with this decision. They have the power to close schools in Scotland and would love nothing more than to show that they are better and more caring than the U.K. government, but as yet they have not.

They, by the way, have their own chief medical officer, as do wales and NI.

theological

McGiver wrote: »

Herd immunity is a nonsense in this context. It's related to vaccination where certain percentage of vaccinated protect the rest of the unvaccinated population, and typically it's a very high percentage depending on the pathogen.

The current situation with covid-19 is not analogous.

The reality is a sizeable portion of the population will catch coronavirus it is an inevitability. It is now a case of managing the spread. Keeping the vulnerable away from it.

In contact with a lot of people in Ireland it seems there is widespread panic judging from some conversations I've had and people locking themselves indoors and banning church services. I saw a photo from a friend in a Dublin suburb with most of the items on the entire aisle of the supermarket taken off in the midst of panic buying.

Panicked actions like this are not helpful.

Acting appropriately to ensure that our response can last more than a few weeks to see it out is better.

I've been out and about today. I plan to be at church tomorrow. I may buy some medical supplies and canned food to last a 2 week period if needed. I'm working on the assumption that it will spread and that it's reasonably likely that I could catch it. I plan on living life in the meanwhile and acting on the best advice. For the record I think this is what the British government are doing. Panicked actions are counterproductive if they don't achieve anything.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

I've been out and about today. I plan to be at church tomorrow. I may buy some medical supplies and canned food to last a 2 week period if needed. I'm working on the assumption that it will spread and that it's reasonably likely that I could catch it. I plan on living life in the meanwhile and acting on the best advice. For the record I think this is what the British government are doing. Panicked actions are counterproductive if they don't achieve anything.

Well done you on not letting this change your lifestyle :rolleyes:
Remember though that even though it doesn't affect you too badly, who close to you will you infect? Are they strong enough to fight it?

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

The reality is a sizeable portion of the population will catch coronavirus it is an inevitability. It is now a case of managing the spread. Keeping the vulnerable away from it.

In contact with a lot of people in Ireland it seems there is widespread panic judging from some conversations I've had and people locking themselves indoors and banning church services. I saw a photo from a friend in a Dublin suburb with most of the items on the entire aisle of the supermarket taken off in the midst of panic buying.

Panicked actions like this are not helpful.

Acting appropriately to ensure that our response can last more than a few weeks to see it out is better.

I've been out and about today. I plan to be at church tomorrow. I may buy some medical supplies and canned food to last a 2 week period if needed. I'm working on the assumption that it will spread and that it's reasonably likely that I could catch it. I plan on living life in the meanwhile and acting on the best advice. For the record I think this is what the British government are doing. Panicked actions are counterproductive if they don't achieve anything.

Well sure if that's your attitude towards these things then so be it. Not much anyone could do to change it.

Your attitude is only harmless as long as you are the only one doing it. It is like the anti-vaxxers. If everyone else makes the effort and gets the vaccine then nobody will get the disease (not talking about corona here, talking generally). You'll be grand and so will everyone else and you can gleefully gloat at all the "eejits" for making the effort.

The problem is that when there are say, 10% of the people equally as selfish, then we all start to run into problems, especially with corona. Everyone else can make the effort and do their bit and then the 10% of inconsiderate arseholes will go around spreading it to everyone else. And there will be a few old or weak people who will die further down the chain who might not have died had it not been for some "full time mad bastard" who still had to go out for his Friday pints.

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well done you on not letting this change your lifestyle :rolleyes:
Remember though that even though it doesn't affect you too badly, who close to you will you infect? Are they strong enough to fight it?

Not much point stressing about it as there's nothing anyone can do,arguing which strategy is the best doesn't help either.Especially as other EU nations are doing their own thing.

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well done you on not letting this change your lifestyle :rolleyes:
Remember though that even though it doesn't affect you too badly, who close to you will you infect? Are they strong enough to fight it?

Donald Trump wrote: »

The problem is that when there are say, 10% of the people equally as selfish, then we all start to run into problems, especially with corona. Everyone else can make the effort and do their bit and then the 10% of inconsiderate arseholes will go around spreading it to everyone else. And there will be a few old or weak people who will die further down the chain who might not have died had it not been for some "full time mad bastard" who still had to go out for his Friday pints.

It's good to be rational about it.

In order to catch it I would have to have been spending 15 minutes in the radius of an infected person within 2 metres range. The same if I was to spread it. Considering that I've basically been at home all week bar Monday because I was in work the risk of being a super spreader is limited. When I have been out I've washed my hands on arriving and returning. If I become ill of course I will stay indoors and isolate.

It isn't selfish to go outside! This shows the level of irrational panic that's been unnecessarily drilled into people.

Unnecessary panic is counterproductive.

Leroy42

Going outside is fine, but church? Full of older people for 50 minutes followed by others for the next mass?

Many with underlying health problems?

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

Unnecessary panic is counterproductive.

... so necessary panic would be productive?

Could you give us some examples of same? :pac:

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

In order to catch it I would have to have been spending 15 minutes in the radius of an infected person within 2 metres range. The same if I was to spread it.

It isn't time dependent. If they cough or sneeze in the first of those 15 mins you can catch it. Their respiratory water droplets (or someone elses) can also contaminate a surface for days which you then pick up on your hand and then inadvertently put on your mouth.