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

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

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?

When I'm not presenting with any symptoms of the virus? No. Just back had a great time and our congregation isn't all old. We're pretty well balanced in age. I'm pretty sure the church are doing some things. No tea and coffee after service and we won't be doing the Lord's supper but when everyone is well there's no good reason to call church off.

During the kids slot the vicar did a great job of explaining that we should love our neighbours by avoiding panicked actions like grabbing everything from supermarket shelves. From a Christian perspective we should be coming to our God in prayer together at a time like this.

CelticRambler wrote: »

... so necessary panic would be productive?

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

I wouldn't call it panic. People should be prepared. For example - I got some medicine and some food to last if I needed to be in isolation. That's probably sensible action. Only a modest amount is needed.

What do you think is proportionate?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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.

I'm trying to avoid touching my face until I've washed my hands when I'm using public transport. When I was out yesterday I drove my car which is probably one of the safest ways to travel right now. As I said I'm remote working during the week so I'm not in London.

As I say though it is fairly likely that I'll catch it at some stage. All one can do is be ready in the event that happens. All governments including the Irish one have said it is a case of managing the spread.

The best medical advice says it usually takes more than 15 minutes of contact to catch it.

davedanon

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidemiologist-britain-herd-immunity-coronavirus-covid-19

https://www.immunology.org/news/bsi-open-letter-government-sars-cov-2-outbreak-response

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

Three separate pieces from completely different sources. All mention herd immunity. The term is all over the papers, and so far I haven't heard the British government denying it.

theological

Just watching Marr on BBC. iPlayer link for anyone in the UK. I thought Matt Hancock did a good job (see from 47:15) of explaining the strategy. The government has plans to ask the most vulnerable in the over 70s to self-isolate. There is legislation going through next week to ensure the government has the correct powers and the message is very much the right thing at the right time will be done based on the advice of the experts. I was also encouraged that they are procuring ventilators to deal with the more severe respiratory problems that come with strong versions of the virus. They are preparing doctors to retrain in respiratory areas and considering asking recently retired doctors to rejoin and like in Italy converting buildings info temporary hospitals or converting wings where elective surgery happens into areas for tackling the virus. Obviously a huge amount of thought has gone into this.

The point about ensuring that there isn't fatigue by doing things too early is also a strong one. Also ensuring that people don't rush to panic buy. If anything is selfish that is it.

Edit: herd immunity wasn't mentioned as a part of the strategy. It was mentioned in terms of long term dealing with illnesses like this by the Chief Scientific Officer Patrick Vallance. Matt Hancock also explains this on Marr.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

Just watching Marr on BBC. iPlayer link for anyone in the UK. I thought Matt Hancock did a good job (see from 47:15) of explaining the strategy. The government has plans to ask the most vulnerable in the over 70s to self-isolate. There is legislation going through next week to ensure the government has the correct powers and the message is very much the right thing at the right time will be done based on the advice of the experts. I was also encouraged that they are procuring ventilators to deal with the more severe respiratory problems that come with strong versions of the virus. They are preparing doctors to retrain in respiratory areas and considering asking recently retired doctors to rejoin and like in Italy converting buildings info temporary hospitals or converting wings where elective surgery happens into areas for tackling the virus. Obviously a huge amount of thought has gone into this.

The point about ensuring that there isn't fatigue by doing things too early is also a strong one. Also ensuring that people don't rush to panic buy. If anything is selfish that is it.

This talk of changing production lines to make ventilators and to retrain doctors in a matter of weeks is all nonsense in a reality vacuum.

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

This talk of changing production lines to make ventilators and to retrain doctors in a matter of weeks is all nonsense in a reality vacuum.

Do you have a better strategy that is similarly measured and nuanced that doesn't result in inducing mass panic? I'd be interested to hear it if so.

Edit: Here's a helpful clip of the Chief Scientific Officer explaining why schools aren't closed in the UK.

J Mysterio

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.

Yeah, no one is panicking in the UK.

https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1239191342024187905?s=20

J Mysterio

theological wrote: »

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.

Seems this is not so. I understand the virus can even survive on surfaces (stainless steel up to three hours and even at least a couple of hours on cardboard). There is a possibility it can even stay in the air for a time. Simply touch a surface with the virus and touch your mouth, eyes, or nose and bingo.

Happy4all

J Mysterio wrote: »

Yeah, no one is panicking in the UK.

https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1239191342024187905?s=20

The irony of queuing desperately outside a German supermarket chain.

theological

J Mysterio wrote: »

Seems this is not so. I understand the virus can even survive on surfaces (stainless steel up to three hours and even at least a couple of hours on cardboard). There is a possibility it can even stay in the air for a time. Simply touch a surface with the virus and touch your mouth, eyes, or nose and bingo.

Correct. This is why avoiding touching your face until you've washed your hands is a good idea. When I was still commuting into work (which I'm not now) I made sure to wash my hands first thing when I got to the office and first thing when I got home. I'll do the same when I'm out and about at any stage.

To catch it from another person however - it seems like you need to be in a 2 metre radius for about 15 minutes typically.

Catching it is still highly probable, so it's good to be prepared for this scenario.

I condemn panic buying generally it must be said. I've not seen it at all here in my area but if it's happening in other places that's truly selfish.

Timberrrrrrrr

J Mysterio wrote: »

Yeah, no one is panicking in the UK.

https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1239191342024187905?s=20

Just back from morrisons and place is quiet, shelves mostly full (pasta and chicken looked low) but otherwise a normal sunday. Cant understand why people are queueing and panicking like that.

J Mysterio

theological wrote: »

Correct. This is why avoiding touching your face until you've washed your hands is a good idea. When I was still commuting into work (which I'm not now) I made sure to wash my hands first thing when I got to the office and first thing when I got home. I'll do the same when I'm out and about at any stage.

To catch it from another person however - it seems like you need to be in a 2 metre radius for about 15 minutes typically.

Catching it is still highly probable, so it's good to be prepared for this scenario.

I condemn panic buying generally it must be said. I've not seen it at all here in my area but if it's happening in other places that's truly selfish.

The 15 minute thing is a nonsense. You only need for them to shed a molecule that you then inhale or ingest in some way. That could happen in seconds.

J Mysterio

https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1239210618357334017

NIMAN

J Mysterio wrote: »

https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1239210618357334017

Even by the standard of panic buying, I'm calling fake on that last one.

theological

J Mysterio wrote: »

The 15 minute thing is a nonsense. You only need for them to shed a molecule that you then inhale or ingest in some way. That could happen in seconds.

Oh good. I'm glad you know more than the HSE or the UK government on this. I'll stick with what the experts are saying on this.

As always I'm happy to engage with evidence and a logical argument but remaining calm seems to be the best asset with this. Action at the right time rather than just action for the sake of it.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

Action at the right time rather than just action for the sake of it.

I love the way you repeatedly restate this notion, completely dismissing the considered medical expertise of most European nations, including your own, with this airy dismissal. And yet you ask for direct quotes and hard fact for every proposition 'the opposition' come up with.

theological

davedanon wrote: »

I love the way you repeatedly restate this notion, completely dismissing the considered medical expertise of most European nations, including your own, with this airy dismissal. And yet you ask for direct quotes and hard fact for every proposition 'the opposition' come up with.

It's possible that different experts can advise different things. I think the UK approach is logical and well explained. If you disagree I'd love to talk about the substance of this. But it must be substantial rather than claims that you won't back up as in previous cases in the last few pages.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

The government has plans ...

There is legislation going through next week

the message is very much the right thing at the right time will be done

They are preparing doctors to retrain in respiratory areas and considering asking recently retired doctors to rejoin

Obviously a huge amount of thought has gone into this.

Has it? Speaking as someone whose day job involves planning for exactly this kind of thing (depending on who I'm working for), it seems to me that there's a heck of a lot of future tense in all those plans when any genuine expert would have had all those points thought out at least three years ago. I don't consider myself an expert, but everything on that list I'd put down in writing four years ago. And when my employers didn't listen to me, I put it down in writing again three years ago. And when they still didn't take me seriously, two years ago I smacked a few heads together, banged on their mahogany table and told them to cop on to themselves, then went downstairs and with a deputy I'd trained on the quiet, drew up sketches of who should do what and where and when.

When I went back there in January, I found they'd re-drawn their new building plans to incorporate everything that I'd told them to do, and my deputy had made sure that another new building included features that would allow us to handle the worst epidemic nature (or the conspiracy theorists) could throw at us in the future.

There is no valid reason for any government to be "making plans" when an epidemic of this kind is already circulating in the community.

theological wrote: »

The point about ensuring that there isn't fatigue by doing things too early is also a strong one.

No, it's not. Fatigue has no place in disease control: measures are either put in place or they're not. Some terrorist once decided he could hide a bomb in 150ml of shampoo; ever since, the rest of us have had to put up with pointless "security measures" that prevent us bringing tubes of toothpaste onto planes. How come the fatigue argument doesn't apply in that case?

What's going on is a Johnson-Cummings administration that doesn't know how to plan. They didn't plan for a Leave win in the referendum, and they don't know what they want from their shiny new, not-quite-oven-ready-after-all Brexit. Their handling of the Covid-19 situation is just another symptom of incompetence within the administration.

theological

Aha so in planning everything needs to happen at once for it to be effective rather than when it is appropriate considering the impact?

Fatigue does have a place when you're asking people to lock themselves indoors for months on end. There's no point starting that too early only for them to emerge during the middle of the peak when it is at its most widespread.

I think your criticism needs more substance.

It's also amusing you're suggesting that the Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Medical Officer aren't experts.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

It's also amusing you're suggesting that the Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Medical Officer aren't experts.

I'm sorry, you really must provide evidence to support this claim. The poster didn't mention either of those individuals. Nobody, to my knowledge, is suggesting that Chris Whitty or anyone working with/for him are anything but expert. What we are suggesting is that THE GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION THEY WORK FOR DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

theological

Except for the fact that these experts are informing the Government and defending their strategy. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary?

davedanon

Here's the Brits presenting a united front on the issue. Matt Hancock disavowing the herd immunity approach espoused by Vallance.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/alexwickham/boris-johnson-coronavirus-strategy-for-the-public?__twitter_impression=true

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Has it? Speaking as someone whose day job involves planning for exactly this kind of thing (depending on who I'm working for), it seems to me that there's a heck of a lot of future tense in all those plans when any genuine expert would have had all those points thought out at least three years ago. I don't consider myself an expert, but everything on that list I'd put down in writing four years ago. And when my employers didn't listen to me, I put it down in writing again three years ago. And when they still didn't take me seriously, two years ago I smacked a few heads together, banged on their mahogany table and told them to cop on to themselves, then went downstairs and with a deputy I'd trained on the quiet, drew up sketches of who should do what and where and when.

When I went back there in January, I found they'd re-drawn their new building plans to incorporate everything that I'd told them to do, and my deputy had made sure that another new building included features that would allow us to handle the worst epidemic nature (or the conspiracy theorists) could throw at us in the future.

There is no valid reason for any government to be "making plans" when an epidemic of this kind is already circulating in the community.



No, it's not. Fatigue has no place in disease control: measures are either put in place or they're not. Some terrorist once decided he could hide a bomb in 150ml of shampoo; ever since, the rest of us have had to put up with pointless "security measures" that prevent us bringing tubes of toothpaste onto planes. How come the fatigue argument doesn't apply in that case?

What's going on is a Johnson-Cummings administration that doesn't know how to plan. They didn't plan for a Leave win in the referendum, and they don't know what they want from their shiny new, not-quite-oven-ready-after-all Brexit. Their handling of the Covid-19 situation is just another symptom of incompetence within the administration.

Strange that Britain is criticised here for not following Ireland's strategy whilst France has a different strategy from Ireland-so are France wrong as well?

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Aha so in planning everything needs to happen at once for it to be effective rather than when it is appropriate considering the impact?

Fatigue does have a place when you're asking people to lock themselves indoors for months on end. There's no point starting that too early only for them to emerge during the middle of the peak when it is at its most widespread.

I think your criticism needs more substance.

It's also amusing you're suggesting that the Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Medical Officer aren't experts.

How do you think that fatigue is working out over in Italy?

How long would it take for fatigue to set in in the UK and for people to forget about taking precautions if it gets to a stage where there are hundreds, or even thousands, of deaths from it in a day?

Donald Trump

RobMc59 wrote: »

Strange that Britain is criticised here for not following Ireland's strategy whilst France has a different strategy from Ireland-so are France wrong as well?

Hi.

UK rules are up North as well.

It should not take a genius to figure out why we'd be more focused right now on what UK is doing as compared to say France, or Latvia, or Sri Lanka etc.

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

How do you think that fatigue is working out over in Italy?

How long would it take for fatigue to set in in the UK and for people to forget about taking precautions if it gets to a stage where there are hundreds, or even thousands, of deaths from it in a day?

Actually one of the criticisms in Italy was that people didn't isolate properly when they were told to. Interesting that he notes that school closures didn't work initially because people who were ill didn't isolate properly.

The key steps are for anyone who has any form of respiratory tract infection however minor to isolate. In the coming weeks it's also sensible to ask vulnerable groups like the over 70s to isolate. There's good arguments against closing schools at this stage. I linked to a video where Patrick Vallance explains the reasoning on this earlier in the thread.

It's important to do the necessary things first and add more as is necessary. The problem with starting everything before it is necessary is that people will give up too early and do stupid things. It's better to be sustainable and last. It's a reasonable concern.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Hi.

UK rules are up North as well.

It should not take a genius to figure out why we'd be more focused right now on what UK is doing as compared to say France, or Latvia, or Sri Lanka etc.

Ok let's get to the nitty gritty. What precisely do you think the UK isn't doing that could be much more effective and why?

A good answer to this question will have quantifiable measurements and / or reference to experts on the subject.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

It's important to do the necessary things first and add more as is necessary. The problem with starting everything before it is necessary is that people will give up too early and do stupid things.

And the problem with your (your government's) approach is that what was really necessary wasn't done at all - i.e. recognise the risk posed by the outbreak in China and set in motion a proper "major epidemic" control plan. That should have been done back in December, but it wasn't. Other countries in Europe were equally complacent, but they've moved more aggressively now to put a lid on things. The UK is alone in recognising the severity of the situation and deliberately choosing to do nothing. In that sense, the Johnson-Cummings administration is effectively no better than Trump.

theological wrote: »

It's also amusing you're suggesting that the Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Medical Officer aren't experts.

I didn't suggest that. I said that the government, three months in to the problem, should not be talking about making plans.

theological wrote: »

Except for the fact that these experts are informing the Government and defending their strategy. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary?

My evidence to the contrary is that the government's strategy makes no sense whatsoever, neither to control the disease to the point of eradication, nor to manage it in such a way as to limit critical cases while building up herd immunity.

In that respect, it is a perfect reflection of their Brexit strategy: bluff and bluster, with no real idea of what they want or how they're going to achieve it.

davedanon

davedanon wrote: »

Here's the Brits presenting a united front on the issue. Matt Hancock disavowing the herd immunity approach espoused by Vallance.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/alexwickham/boris-johnson-coronavirus-strategy-for-the-public?__twitter_impression=true

no one espoused the herd immunity approach though.

Leo spoke of potentially 85,000 deaths in Ireland, based on a contagion rate of 60% of the population. Merkal spoke of 70% of Germans contracting Corona virus.

These are the expected rates and are based on Herd Immunity, yet for some reason you are not on here every five minutes talking about them.

theological

Moving aggressively isn't the same thing as moving effectively. I disagree with the assessment that the government don't have a plan. Matt Hancock is pretty clear that they do and will implement the appropriate pieces at the correct stage with advice from the experts. Moving aggressively seems to be causing premature panic in Ireland from what I'm seeing. Staying calm, measured and calculated based on the science seems to be a better option.

You claim that the government effectively did nothing as this was starting in China. That's also false. There was a well implanted strategy of isolation for people arriving from China.

I'm struggling to find much if any substance in your criticism. I suspect we won't agree.

davedanon

Aegir wrote: »

no one espoused the herd immunity approach though.

Leo spoke of potentially 85,000 deaths in Ireland, based on a contagion rate of 60% of the population. Merkal spoke of 70% of Germans contracting Corona virus.

These are the expected rates and are based on Herd Immunity, yet for some reason you are not on here every five minutes talking about them.

There is no herd immunity, not until people get the disease and recover, or die. 'Potentially' is the keyword, meanwhile, and we are actively trying to prevent that happening. Unlike Britain, which is doing very little, and doing it very slowly. This thing gets much, much worse by the day.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

Moving aggressively seems to be causing premature panic in Ireland from what I'm seeing. Staying calm, measured and calculated based on the science seems to be a better option.

Bull****. We are taking aggressive measures because people aren't reacting appropriately. Did you not see the Temple Bar video? And people getting over-excited and stockpiling toilet rolls and slabs of beer isn't 'panicking', ffs. For someone who demands hard evidence for everything you make a lot of unsupported, sweeping statements, don't you?