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

theological

davedanon wrote: »

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?

In the photo I saw from a friend it was also entirely clearing out meat aisles in a Dublin supermarket. That kind of disgracefully greedy selfish stockpiling does a huge disservice to other people.

People who don't have the virus being out, children going to school. These things worry me much much less. It could be better than the alternative of kids going to grandparents because their parents have to work.

Keeping people who exhibit even minor symptoms and the vulnerable away from others is much much more important at this stage.

But anyway, I suspect we'll go around and around in circles. I've got a lot of confidence in the nuanced and calm strategy of the government here.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

In the photo I saw from a friend it was also entirely clearing out meat aisles in a Dublin supermarket. That kind of disgracefully greedy selfish stockpiling does a huge disservice to other people.

People who don't have the virus being out, children going to school. These things worry me much much less. It could be better than the alternative of kids going to grandparents because their parents have to work.

Keeping people who exhibit even minor symptoms and the vulnerable away from others is much much more important at this stage.

But anyway, I suspect we'll go around and around in circles. I've got a lot of confidence in the nuanced and calm strategy of the government here.

Yes, we will, especially when you keep changing the subject. Selfish and thoughtless over-shopping is many things. Panicking isn't one of them, in this case.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

I've got a lot of confidence in the nuanced and calm strategy of the government here.

I find it odd that you're happy to trust the experts now but when they were counselling against Brexit they were wrong.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I find it odd that you're happy to trust the experts now but when they were counselling against Brexit they were wrong.

Medical scientists versus economic speculations with differing assumptions and differing outcomes which can change based on circumstances.

One is based on what we know the other is based on speculation based on assumptions.

The first is much much more certain than the second. In fact the nature of the data differs radically.

Economics isn't the only factor either. There's political and policy concerns which aren't a science.

davedanon

Normally I'd be happy to be proved right on here, but in this case it's going to be measured in human deaths. Has anyone seen this? The Stereophonics playing Cardiff this weekend. One, gigantic fecking petri dish.

https://mobile.twitter.com/stereophonics/status/1238976755022680065

Donald Trump

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I find it odd that you're happy to trust the experts now but when they were counselling against Brexit they were wrong.

It's not necessarily "experts" he likes

It's the tiny minority of gobshites that are advising Boris Johnson. Not the 99% accepted opinion or the advice of those at the frontline in other regions.

If Johnson came out tomorrow and announced he was sending the army into poor areas to shoot all citizens on sight in order to create "firebreaks" against transmission to wealthier areas, sure he'd be on here lauding Boris' genius :pac:

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Medical scientists versus economic speculations with differing assumptions and differing outcomes which can change based on circumstances.

One is based on what we know the other is based on speculation based on assumptions.

The first is much much more certain than the second. In fact the nature of the data differs radically.

Economics isn't the only factor either. There's political and policy concerns which aren't a science.

I'll accept that economics is a lot less rigorous by its nature than epidemiology but the latter is highly probability based as well so I do think that this is a fair point.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

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.



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.

Hey there genius.

Asymptomatic people can spread this virus. There have been articles with reports people that are asymptomatic shedding the virus at three times the rates of those who have symptoms.

And then there is the window between infection and symptoms which occurs in infected people.

Kinda makes shite of your retarded "solution" that just those with symptoms stay at home

McGiver

theological wrote:

Oh good. I'm glad you know more than

They're wrong. Which is shocking.

Covid-19 is not airborne. Time needed to spend in the vicinity of any infected person would apply to airborne pathogens such as the TB. Covid-19 spreads by droplets so any time limit doesn't apply.

One sneeze when you are less than 2 metres away is sufficient to get infected.

WHO:

People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets. This is why it is important to stay more than 1 meter (3 feet) away from a person who is sick.

Maintain at least 1 metre (3 feet) distance between yourself and anyone who is coughing or sneezing.
Why? When someone coughs or sneezes they spray small liquid droplets from their nose or mouth which may contain virus. If you are too close, you can breathe in the droplets, including the COVID-19 virus if the person coughing has the disease.

There's no mention of any time limit anywhere on the WHO covid-19 website.

McGiver

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I find it odd that you're happy to trust the experts now but when they were counselling against Brexit they were wrong.

Brexiter's theory of Schrödinger's experts - they are both wrong and correct at the same time

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'll accept that economics is a lot less rigorous by its nature than epidemiology but the latter is highly probability based as well so I do think that this is a fair point.

It depends on what inputs you put in however. Which is why there are economists who were supportive of Brexit and economists who weren't.

As I've also said economics is not the only lens by which to analyse Brexit under. Brexit is also about political sovereignty in respect to national decision making and migration law amongst other things. It is multi-faceted and can be argued on the basis of pros and cons with many people falling on different sides of the question. I don't argue for example that there are no arguments for staying in the EU. Of course there are. I used to argue for it in 2016. I just think the arguments for leaving are stronger. I've explained why in earlier iterations of this thread and when I wasn't banned from the Politics forum for wrong think. I respect that you disagree because you feel otherwise.

On public health we're dealing with medical facts and how best to respond to them. From my reading of it so far the UK side are doing a brilliant job in a measured way based on what we know.

We shouldn't be critical of it just because we don't like Boris Johnson or Dominic Cummings or Brexit for example. We should be critical of it for logical reasons.

lawred2

theological wrote: »

In the photo I saw from a friend it was also entirely clearing out meat aisles in a Dublin supermarket. That kind of disgracefully greedy selfish stockpiling does a huge disservice to other people.

People who don't have the virus being out, children going to school. These things worry me much much less. It could be better than the alternative of kids going to grandparents because their parents have to work.

Keeping people who exhibit even minor symptoms and the vulnerable away from others is much much more important at this stage.

But anyway, I suspect we'll go around and around in circles. I've got a lot of confidence in the nuanced and calm strategy of the government here.

The panic buying has passed

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

It depends on what inputs you put in however. Which is why there are economists who were supportive of Brexit and economists who weren't.

As I've also said economics is not the only lens by which to analyse Brexit under. Brexit is also about political sovereignty in respect to national decision making and migration law amongst other things. It is multi-faceted and can be argued on the basis of pros and cons with many people falling on different sides of the question. I don't argue for example that there are no arguments for staying in the EU. Of course there are. I used to argue for it in 2016. I just think the arguments for leaving are stronger. I've explained why in earlier iterations of this thread and when I wasn't banned from the Politics forum for wrong think. I respect that you disagree because you feel otherwise.

On public health we're dealing with medical facts and how best to respond to them. From my reading of it so far the UK side are doing a brilliant job in a measured way based on what we know.

We shouldn't be critical of it just because we don't like Boris Johnson or Dominic Cummings or Brexit for example. We should be critical of it for logical reasons.

Aside from Patrick Minford, I don't recall seeing many, if any Economists in favour of Brexit so the two sides wheeze doesn't hold unless you can cite a poll or something similar.

Please do not lie about me. You asked to be banned. I have the PM.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Aside from Patrick Minford, I don't recall seeing many, if any Economists in favour of Brexit so the two sides wheeze doesn't hold unless you can cite a poll or something similar.

Please do not lie about me. You asked to be banned. I have the PM.

I'm happy to take the other question offline. I was simply referring to arguments I've made for Brexit here and on the Politics forum.

Patrick Minford isn't the only pro-Brexit economist. There are others but my point is that it is a subject of disagreement both within that field but also politically in respect to sovereignty and other areas such as immigration. I respect that there are arguments that can be made for staying in the EU but on balance I think Britain outside the EU is the right place and I've explained why ad nauseum at this stage.

So obviously it isn't comparable to medical science. I am interested in discussing the difference in policy on this in the UK however. I think it has struck the right balance.

coastwatch

theological wrote: »

On public health we're dealing with medical facts and how best to respond to them. From my reading of it so far the UK side are doing a brilliant job in a measured way based on what we know.

Hundreds of UK doctors and scientists dont share your view. They want the UK government to publish
the evidence that supports the appoach of stopping widespread community testing, contact tracing, and the reliance on herd immunity.

"Public health experts and hundreds of doctors and scientists at home and abroad are urging the UK government to change its strategy against coronavirus, amid fears it will mean the epidemic “lets rip” through the population."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/coronavirus-health-experts-fear-epidemic-will-let-rip-through-uk

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Patrick Minford isn't the only pro-Brexit economist. There are others but my point is that it is a subject of disagreement both within that field but also politically in respect to sovereignty and other areas such as immigration. I respect that there are arguments that can be made for staying in the EU but on balance I think Britain outside the EU is the right place and I've explained why ad nauseum at this stage.

So obviously it isn't comparable to medical science. I am interested in discussing the difference in policy on this in the UK however. I think it has struck the right balance.

I believe that had experts been split on Brexit, we wouldn't have had Michael Gove's famous quip on the subject.

My point wasn't about notions of sovereignty or immigration. It was about experts being casually dismissed and sneered at in 2016 and now that they seem to be advocating measures taken by the government they must be listened to.

Uncertainty will hobble UK business investment and depress consumer spending in 2019, stunting long-term growth even if Britain manages to avoid a disorderly Brexit, according to a poll of more than 80 leading economists.

The best the UK can expect over the year is uninspiring growth remaining at its current level of about 1.5 per cent, even if the economy eventually enjoys a modest rebound on the back of a deal with the EU, the FT’s annual survey on the UK’s economic outlook suggests.

A majority of the 81 economists, polled between December 17 and 21, did not give a firm prediction for growth in the coming year, despite last year correctly anticipating a slowdown to 1.5 per cent growth in 2018. Many said forecasting for 2019 was impossible given the “comprehensive” and “chronic” uncertainty that had become “a way of life” in the UK, especially when likely Brexit outcomes were binary: either no deal or no Brexit.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a90765c-0ce6-11e9-acdc-4d9976f1533b

Donald Trump

coastwatch wrote: »

Hundreds of UK doctors and scientists dont share your view. They want the UK government to publish
the evidence that supports the appoach of stopping widespread community testing, contact tracing, and the reliance on herd immunity.

"Public health experts and hundreds of doctors and scientists at home and abroad are urging the UK government to change its strategy against coronavirus, amid fears it will mean the epidemic “lets rip” through the population."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/coronavirus-health-experts-fear-epidemic-will-let-rip-through-uk

There is an "almost" Stockholm syndrome amongst certain people.
They go to the UK, doff the cap to the Brits and believe it when the Brits tell them they are better than the Paddies. Some then think that if they go back and stick up for Boris and belittle the other Paddies then maybe an upper class Brit will pat them on the head and call them a good boy and perhaps even give them a little Union Jack flag to wave.

Tally-ho pip pip!

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I believe that had experts been split on Brexit, we wouldn't have had Michael Gove's famous quip on the subject.

My point wasn't about notions of sovereignty or immigration. It was about experts being casually dismissed and sneered at in 2016 and now that they seem to be advocating measures taken by the government they must be listened to.

My response is that Brexit is multi-faceted. It isn't solely about economics, it is also political and there are a range of opinions on that based on the assumptions you insert.

Therefore it isn't directly comparable to medical science and how to respond to it on coronavirus.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

My response is that Brexit is multi-faceted. It isn't solely about economics, it is also political and there are a range of opinions on that based on the assumptions you insert.

Therefore it isn't directly comparable to medical science and how to respond to it on coronavirus.

It being political does not detract from my point. The government is being praised for consulting experts now while experts were derided in 2016. It's not about the sector, it's about defending the government.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It being political does not detract from my point. The government is being praised for consulting experts now while experts were derided in 2016. It's not about the sector, it's about defending the government.

It also doesn't detract from mine. That even economic forecasting is based on speculation and assumptions that are inputted and even in this area there is disagreement. Plus there are more factors at play.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

It also doesn't detract from mine. That even economic forecasting is based on speculation and assumptions that are inputted and even in this area there is disagreement. Plus there are more factors at play.

Such speculation is the best that is available compared to what, say chemists and biologists can work with.

When following the 2016 debates, there was no engagement with the arguments of economists. They were just dismissed. It's perfectly fine to point out flaws and/or assumptions in a predictive mathematical model but it's another to wave one's hand at an inconvenient argument though I am not suggesting that you yourself did so.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

It depends on what inputs you put in however. Which is why there are economists who were supportive of Brexit and economists who weren't.

...

On public health we're dealing with medical facts and how best to respond to them. From my reading of it so far the UK side are doing a brilliant job in a measured way based on what we know.

Medical facts, especially in the early stages of an epidemic, aren't nearly as hard and fast as you seem to believe. That you are arguing in favour of the "brilliant job" being done by the UK government when the medical facts (such as they are) support an alternative strategy, and one promoted by an overwhelming majority of other Public Health organisations shows that in this situation, we're in exactly the same territory as Brexit.

Ultimately, there is only one sure medical fact about Covid-19: it is transmitted from human to human, so the best means of control in the absence of an effective vaccine is the isolation of contagious individuals - especially asymptomatic carriers. The UK has chosen not to adopt this approach, so - in the same way that Brexit was predicted (and has been shown) to have an invariably negative effect on the British economy - Covid-19 can be expected to have an invariably negative effect on British public health.

First Up

theological wrote:

It also doesn't detract from mine. That even economic forecasting is based on speculation and assumptions that are inputted and even in this area there is disagreement. Plus there are more factors at play.

The only speculation and disagreement is over the extent of the eco omic damage facing the UK. There has not been a single credible argument that the UK can replace even a fraction of the business it will lose in Europe with new business elsewhere.

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

There is an "almost" Stockholm syndrome amongst certain people.
They go to the UK, doff the cap to the Brits and believe it when the Brits tell them they are better than the Paddies. Some then think that if they go back and stick up for Boris and belittle the other Paddies then maybe an upper class Brit will pat them on the head and call them a good boy and perhaps even give them a little Union Jack flag to wave.

Tally-ho pip pip!

Or God forbid I actually agree with the politics of the Conservatives and the strategy of the government on this issue.

Apparently you're the sort of fantastic liberal who thinks that you can't be Irish if you commit wrong think!

How about we engage with decent arguments from the other perspective rather than as hominems?

This is what I asked you:

theological wrote: »

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.

coastwatch

theological wrote: »

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.

Start widespread community testing and contact tracing.

"Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s director general, expressed his deep concern on Friday at the end of testing and contact tracing in the UK and some other European countries.

“You can’t fight a virus if you don’t know where it is,” he said. “Find, isolate, test and treat every case to break the chains of Covid transmission. Every case we find and treat limits the expansion of the disease.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/coronavirus-health-experts-fear-epidemic-will-let-rip-through-uk

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Or God forbid I actually agree with the politics of the Conservatives and the strategy of the government on this issue.

Apparently you're the sort of fantastic liberal who thinks that you can't be Irish if you commit wrong think!

How about we engage with decent arguments from the other perspective rather than as hominems?

This is what I asked you:

Hi

It is not a difficult answer. They could close schools and ban large mass gatherings. They could have stopped Cheltenham. They could have stopped football matches and concerts.

The virus is spread when infected people come into contact with others. Therefore if you minimize the number of people that can come in contract with an infected person, it will slow the spread.

People who have symptoms can spread the virus before they have symptoms.
People who are asymptomatic can spread the virus. A person can go to a concert, pick up the virus and then a week later spread it to a vulnerable person who just happened to be risking their needed trip to the supermarket to stock up on perishables. They might not have a servant to get it for them like Boris has.

Now if you want me to point you to a peer reviewed journal article explaining specifically why Cheltenham 2020 should have been cancelled then, no, I can't provide that of course. But I can point you towards what the Chinese had to do to get it under control. They have experience with dealing with these type of outbreaks and know what works best.

The number of new cases in China is far less than the number in the UK. Try to fathom that. And the Chinese have tens of thousands of people capable of spreading the virus. The UK had, or has, a chance to nip it in the bud.

Think of it this way then dude if it makes it easier for you to realise the seriousness - the more English people who get the virus, the more English people will die. So English people will die. Not just the Irish or the Italians or the Spanish. English people. Maybe not the upper-class important people, but English people nonetheless. It'll kill off a few immigrants too though on the "positive" side (depending on ones viewpoint I guess)

AllForIt

coastwatch wrote: »

Hundreds of UK doctors and scientists dont share your view. They want the UK government to publish
the evidence that supports the appoach of stopping widespread community testing, contact tracing, and the reliance on herd immunity.

"Public health experts and hundreds of doctors and scientists at home and abroad are urging the UK government to change its strategy against coronavirus, amid fears it will mean the epidemic “lets rip” through the population."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/coronavirus-health-experts-fear-epidemic-will-let-rip-through-uk

Herd immunity is not a policy of the UK gov, it's simply a fact.

Their chief medial reps made a very strong case that outdoor events don't pose much of a threat i.e Cheltenham, in contrast to indoor gathering which pose much more of a threat with this particular virus.

What is happening here is the same ole remainers attacking a Brexit gov in whatever way they can. Which I think is despicable during this crisis.

AllForIt

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It being political does not detract from my point. The government is being praised for consulting experts now while experts were derided in 2016. It's not about the sector, it's about defending the government.

What experts were completely impartial re Brexit? Everyone had a biased view.

And as has been said multiple times it wasn't all about economics anyway. Surely you of all people would know this but you choose to pretend your not aware of the many reasons for Brexit just to make this silly strawman argument you are making.

theological

AllForIt wrote: »

Herd immunity is not a policy of the UK gov, it's simply a fact.

Their chief medial reps made a very strong case that outdoor events don't pose much of a threat i.e Cheltenham, in contrast to indoor gathering which pose much more of a threat with this particular virus.

What is happening here is the same ole remainers attacking a Brexit gov in whatever way they can. Which I think is despicable during this crisis.

The same is true of closing schools at this stage. There's not much impact of this and potentially some in the negative at this stage because there's the grandparent effect. I linked to Patrick Vallance on this a few pages ago explaining this part of the government's strategy.

I'm definitely happy for things to be introduced as is necessary to ensure that when more drastic steps are needed it will last. I think the arguments are lacking.

threeball

theological wrote: »

The same is true of closing schools at this stage. There's not much impact of this and potentially some in the negative at this stage because there's the grandparent effect. I linked to Patrick Vallance on this a few pages ago explaining this part of the government's strategy.

I'm definitely happy for things to be introduced as is necessary to ensure that when more drastic steps are needed it will last. I think the arguments are lacking.

I think the next 3 days in the UK is going to be a stark wakeup call for you. Deaths almost doubled in one day and they still think the infection rate is low with little to no testing happening.
Closing schools now all the kids have it certainly isn't going to be worth a toss. Bringing it home to Mammy the nurse and dad in the ambulance service.