The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

A Dub in Glasgo

gmisk wrote: »

I see Matt Hancock has admitted they spent 12 million pounds on their own app...which was then ditched in favour of the one offered from apple and Google...as well as 108 million pounds on call centres for tracing where people say they have nothing to do....what a total disaster how is he still in a job?!?

Smells of corruption, follow the money and we may see it as such

ShineOn7

Whatsisname wrote: »

It’ll never just be “stamped out”. Viruses don’t just disappear. We have to learn to live with it until either herd immunity is reached or a vaccine is made. The black plague still exists 600 years later.

Er, when was the last time you heard of someone dying from the Black Plague?

Covid might not disappear completely, but it will eventually fade

Joe_ Public

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Smells of corruption, follow the money and we may see it as such

£12m for a cherry on top of a cake that's not even oven ready

£108m to useless Serco for contract tracing, the vast majority of which is being carried out by public health officials.

Another £108m to deliver ppe to an obscure pest control firm that had been sourcing material on social media.

Fair to say a few questions to be answered their alright.

milli milli

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Er, when was the last time you heard of someone dying from the Black Plague?

Covid might not disappear completely, but it will eventually fade

People still dying from bubonic plague (not in the large numbers though, but it’s still around).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague

Whatsisname

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Er, when was the last time you heard of someone dying from the Black Plague?

Covid might not disappear completely, but it will eventually fade

That’s my point. Even the worst plague to ever hit the human race faded. Covid will too.

In 4 months we’ve learned a lot more about it than we initially did, we’ve found treatments that work better than others, vaccine progress seems to be going well with Oxfords and I believe there’s another, they aim to have that rolled out by September which is pretty incredible.

I personally don’t think it’ll be nearly half as prevalent come next April like SMB is worried about, especially if we have a vaccine and more treatments by then. We’ve made a lot of progress in recent months and we’ll only learn more in the next.

Peregrinus

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Er, when was the last time you heard of someone dying from the Black Plague?

Covid might not disappear completely, but it will eventually fade

Bubonic plague was fatal in 30%-90% of cases until antibiotic treatments were developed in the mid-20th century, seven hundred years after it first became pandemic.

Even with antibiotic treatments, it's still fatal in about 10% of cases. Thousands of people still get the plague, and hundreds die, every year, even though we have both effective vaccines and effective antibiotic treatments.

Zubeneschamali

Whatsisname wrote: »

vaccine progress seems to be going well with Oxfords and I believe there’s another, they aim to have that rolled out by September which is pretty incredible.

Literally incredible, as in Not Happening.

S.M.B.

Whatsisname wrote: »

I personally don’t think it’ll be nearly half as prevalent come next April like SMB is worried about, especially if we have a vaccine and more treatments by then. We’ve made a lot of progress in recent months and we’ll only learn more in the next.

It's very possible that my perception of what Witty meant when he said a “significant amount of coronavirus circulating at least until that time” is way off the mark and the governments aim is to really suppress it before we enter Winter.

theological

S.M.B. wrote: »

It's very possible that my perception of what Witty meant when he said a “significant amount of coronavirus circulating at least until that time” is way off the mark and the governments aim is to really suppress it before we enter Winter.

I don't think it is possible to suppress it in any sense apart from internationally.

People will continue to travel and move between countries even at a reduced scale. There is nothing to say that another outbreak of the virus couldn't start when a few people enter undetected with the virus again.

Temperature scanning at airports isn't a sure fire way of knowing, and testing for the virus at the early stage of the incubation period can yield a negative.

In the knowledge of this it is probably better to re-open the economy with some restrictions. Keeping the economy shutdown until the virus dies out is obviously a no-goer. The health service needs to be paid for also.

Peregrinus

It is possible to suppress the virus locall, but it does require very strict travel controls. This is the strategy followed in Australia and New Zealand and it has been pretty successful. Both countries are now reopening their economies quite rapidly, but that they are still maintaining very strict travel controls (including, in the case of Australia, internal travel controls) and seem likely to do so for quite some time to come.

The UK was very slow to introduce travel controls and that alone points to their not having had a strategy of supressing the virus - if they had such a strategy, travel controls would have been among the first measures they adopted, not the last. Even now, their travel controls are less stringent than those applying in Australia and New Zealand. So suppression is not their policy objective. But that's not because it's impossible.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is possible to suppress the virus locall, but it does require very strict travel controls. This is the strategy followed in Australia and New Zealand and it has been pretty successful. Both countries are now reopening their economies quite rapidly, but that they are still maintaining very strict travel controls (including, in the case of Australia, internal travel controls) and seem likely to do so for quite some time to come.

The UK was very slow to introduce travel controls and that alone points to their not having had a strategy of supressing the virus - if they had such a strategy, travel controls would have been among the first measures they adopted, not the last. Even now, their travel controls are less stringent than those applying in Australia and New Zealand. So suppression is not their policy objective. But that's not because it's impossible.

It is a trade off between re-opening the economy, and completely eradicating the virus. In order to do that long term you would have to effectively ban all travel. Given that this virus will probably be around for years, it depends on whether or not one thinks that shutting down travel for years would be worth it. It is a debatable point.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Literally incredible, as in Not Happening.

even if it did miraculously come to market in September, there is no way I am taking a vaccine that comes out that soon. And I am very far from being an anti-vaxxer. It is just not possible to do adequate human trials in that time. God knows what the long term effects might be of what you are putting in your body. I'd rather go with COVID, given my risk profile.

robinph

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even now, their travel controls are less stringent than those applying in Australia and New Zealand. So suppression is not their policy objective. But that's not because it's impossible.

The main travel control that Australia and New Zealand have applied is being a bloody long way away from anywhere else.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

even if it did miraculously come to market in September, there is no way I am taking a vaccine that comes out that soon. And I am very far from being an anti-vaxxer. It is just not possible to do adequate human trials in that time. God knows what the long term effects might be of what you are putting in your body. I'd rather go with COVID, given my risk profile.

Who do you think they carry out the human trials on?

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

The main travel control that Australia and New Zealand have applied is being a bloody long way away from anywhere else.

Not at all. That's a circumstance which makes it relatively easier for Australia and New Zeland to impose travel controls, but the travel controls themselves have a much greater effect than simpel remoteness did.

And it's worth pointing out that countries which would find it even more difficult than the UK to impose travel controls - like countries that have extensive land borders with populous neighbours, for example - nevertheless imposed travel control well ahead of the UK doing so.

Of course the UK had its reasons for not adopting travel controls. I am not saying whether these were good reasons or bad reasons; I'm just saying that a decision not to impose early and stringent travel controls is a decision not to pursue supression. To that extent I am backing up Theo's statement that the UK is not pursuing supression. But I am quarreling with his statement that local or country-specific supression is not possible; it clearly is, and it has been successfully pursued by some.

robinph

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not at all. That's a circumstance which makes it relatively easier for Australia and New Zeland to impose travel controls, but the travel controls themselves have a much greater effect than simpel remoteness did.

And it's worth pointing out that countries which would find it even more difficult than the UK to impose travel controls - like countries that have extensive land borders with populous neighbours, for example - nevertheless imposed travel control well ahead of the UK doing so.

Of course the UK had its reasons for not adopting travel controls. I am not saying whether these were good reasons or bad reasons; I'm just saying that a decision not to impose early and stringent travel controls is a decision not to pursue supression. To that extent I am backing up Theo's statement that the UK is not pursuing supression. But I am quarreling with his statement that local or country-specific supression is not possible; it clearly is, and it has been successfully pursued by some.

Yes the UK could have closed things down sooner, but not sure how much difference it would have made as by the point that countries were shutting down it was already widespread everywhere within Europe, just we didn't necessarily know about that spread at the time.

Nobody is flying to Australia or New Zealand for a weekend break or there and back in the day for a meeting. Their international travel situation is vastly different from the likes of Europe. Even going there for a two week holiday is a bit of a pointless trip at the best of times and people would normally go for longer than that.

On reopening things up the distance involved is the main thing that will keep them safe as you don't go travelling that far to spend two weeks in quarantine only to come straight back again. The travel situation throughout Europe though depends on those shorter duration trips.

Does anywhere in Europe have restrictions similar to what NZ and Aus have imposed? Do you really think they will keep it up through the summer season with the case numbers dropping, ability of health services to handle Covid increasing and their economies being dependant on the reopening up of trading and international travel?

LuckyLloyd

No, nobody is intent on keeping up restrictions and nobody is seriously trying to eradicate this thing.

And in that I feel the seeds of the second wave in the autumn are sown...

Eradication in Europe or the western world would be possible if we wanted it to be. If we were willing to stomach the short term pain. The decision seemed to be taken very early on that we were not

theological

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No, nobody is intent on keeping up restrictions and nobody is seriously trying to eradicate this thing.

And in that I feel the seeds of the second wave in the autumn are sown...

Eradication in Europe or the western world would be possible if we wanted it to be. If we were willing to stomach the short term pain. The decision seemed to be taken very early on that we were not

I guess we should take your advice and just shut down the hatches for 3 years until we have a vaccine? (let's go for a realistic goal here rather than the optimistic ones)

I guess the government will be able to continue paying everyone's salary and continue funding the healthservice in the same way for 3 years also?

This is obviously unrealistic, but I guess it is just something small to stomach in the short term? A massive recession, mass joblessness and a black hole of sovereign debt right?

What happens in the scenario that we don't get a vaccine for this?

Remember, getting rid of this ultimately requires a global eradication.

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No, nobody is intent on keeping up restrictions and nobody is seriously trying to eradicate this thing.

And in that I feel the seeds of the second wave in the autumn are sown...

Eradication in Europe or the western world would be possible if we wanted it to be. If we were willing to stomach the short term pain. The decision seemed to be taken very early on that we were not

Without a vaccine, it won't be eradicated though. It'll just simmer below the surface.

The restrictions are a bit of a joke to be honest. There are people on the tube not wearing masks. Even in the research facility I work in, people are just ignoring several of the rules. We have multiple times the maximum number of people in labs despite obvious signage warning about it and people ignoring the one way system.

I think the Cummings affair really did do a number on people's morale and their capacity and willingness to comply with the regulations. I was fine with it until I started doing half days at work. I'm happy to do whatever to keep people safe but there is damage being done to people's mental health, physical wellbeing and finances over the head of this thing not to mention the disproportionate impact on BAME communities. Something will have to give.

The only long term solution as I said is a vaccine and/or antiviral therapy. Until we get to that stage there'll always be a risk or some kind. We're not far off the winter flu season either.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Who do you think they carry out the human trials on?

not me

REXER

Deleted User wrote: »

Plus the black lives matter protests and the raves, that some would believe that half the British population attended

Are you trying to suggest that the rabble that stupidly attended the protests and their family, friends, colleagues and other contacts are bullet proof???

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think the Cummings affair really did do a number on people's morale and their capacity and willingness to comply with the regulations. I was fine with it until I started doing half days at work. I'm happy to do whatever to keep people safe but there is damage being done to people's mental health, physical wellbeing and finances over the head of this thing not to mention the disproportionate impact on BAME communities. Something will have to give.

Is this anything more than anecdotal however?

The figures in respect to the reduction in the number of cases and deaths shows that the vast vast vast majority of the people in Britain have been following this guidance irrespective of Mr. Cummings or other indiscretions such as the recent protests.

REXER

REXER wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that the rabble that stupidly attended the protests and their family, friends, colleagues and other contacts are bullet proof???

Am just looking at the data and the trends

theological

Deleted User wrote: »

Am just looking at the data and the trends

Agree with this entirely.

Just because a distinct and small minority are doing these things doesn't mean that there's going to be a massive outbreak in the population. The figures still show a downward trend despite 3 relaxations.

Sometimes the common wisdom that gets posted on here isn't accurate or helpful in assessing the situation.

People seem to have a notion that because I see a small group X disobeying the rules it must mean that nobody in Britain is.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

This is obviously unrealistic, but I guess it is just something small to stomach in the short term? A massive recession, mass joblessness and a black hole of sovereign debt right?

What happens in the scenario that we don't get a vaccine for this?

Reconsider the fundamentals of our Western economic model, perhaps?

theological wrote: »

Just because a distinct and small minority are doing these things doesn't mean that there's going to be a massive outbreak in the population. The figures still show a downward trend despite 3 relaxations.

This may be a question of you being "too close to the problem". You are right in that there has been no explosion of cases in the UK following the incremental relaxations ... but if you look at what's happening outside the UK, you'll see that there is a very rapid resurgence of the virus almost as soon as people (government and public) think it's all over. There are lockdowns being re-instated to a greater or lesser degree in countries all across the eastern hemisphere (the Americas proving to be a complete basket case :rolleyes: ) as the disease takes off again. The UK should be learning from these lessons ... but past performance doesn't lead one to believe that they will.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Is this anything more than anecdotal however?

The figures in respect to the reduction in the number of cases and deaths shows that the vast vast vast majority of the people in Britain have been following this guidance irrespective of Mr. Cummings or other indiscretions such as the recent protests.

This isn't my point. I was just giving my own experience of cracks I'm seeing myself in compliance. If I had a study on compliance breaches, I would have shared it.

Plenty of people are of course following the rules, I'm not pretending otherwise. I'm just saying that I do not know how much longer people will be willing to keep going with lockdown in any form. Rolling it back is probably a good idea and hopefully there is the infrastructure to reimpose it should it prove necessary.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

Reconsider the fundamentals of our Western economic model, perhaps?

Perhaps you can lay something out on the table that would move the world away from the only economic model that seems to have worked, namely I need to work for my bread.

CelticRambler wrote: »

This may be a question of you being "too close to the problem". You are right in that there has been no explosion of cases in the UK following the incremental relaxations ... but if you look at what's happening outside the UK, you'll see that there is a very rapid resurgence of the virus almost as soon as people (government and public) think it's all over. There are lockdowns being re-instated to a greater or lesser degree in countries all across the eastern hemisphere (the Americas proving to be a complete basket case :rolleyes: ) as the disease takes off again. The UK should be learning from these lessons ... but past performance doesn't lead one to believe that they will.

Let's try find some common ground:
I agree that people need to tread very carefully in respect to this.

I agree that the UK needs to be getting its act together for the autumn or winter including ensuring that the testing and tracing scheme is ready for such an outbreak and to manage it locally.

A sign that the UK will have failed in the autumn will be if we need to go back into a national lockdown again. That was acceptable as a blunt measure when there was less knowledge about the virus, it won't be acceptable a second time when we should know more and we should be able to contain outbreaks locally.

robinph

REXER wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that the rabble that stupidly attended the protests and their family, friends, colleagues and other contacts are bullet proof???

The people going on trips to the beach seem to be bullet proof, at least there has been no coverage to suggest that those trips to packed beaches a month ago has resulted in unexpected surges in cases.

The surges in cases seem to have been from people working in meat processing factories and then not following guidelines whilst on their coffee breaks.

Dave0301

What concerns me is that we may forget just how infections this things is. The fact that Germany seen over 1000 cases in one slaughterhouse is hard to fathom, although this doesn't indicate the severity of the cases.

I fail to see how there won't be similar outbreaks over the the few months around the UK given that it is happening in other countries. I agree though that we need to live with it until there is a vaccine, I do get that. What I am not happy about is trusting the UK Govt in dealing with it :pac:

Alok Sharma this morning said that nearly 240,000 people were tested yesterday, despite Matt Hancock saying that data wasn't available. It is crap like that which results in mistrust.

theological

Dave0301 wrote: »

What concerns me is that we may forget just how infections this things is. The fact that Germany seen over 1000 cases in one slaughterhouse is hard to fathom, although this doesn't indicate the severity of the cases.

I fail to see how there won't be similar outbreaks over the the few months around the UK given that it is happening in other countries. I agree though that we need to live with it until there is a vaccine, I do get that. What I am not happy about is trusting the UK Govt in dealing with it :pac:

Alok Sharma this morning said that nearly 240,000 people were tested yesterday, despite Matt Hancock saying that data wasn't available. It is crap like that which results in mistrust.

And we're seeing what Germany are doing. Locking down locally. This should be the pattern in Britain.

I sympathise with the meat factory situation, it is a rock and a hard place. We've got unprecedented demand to keep food production up to the same levels whilst having increased demands for social distancing. They are cold environments that the virus seems to thrive in also, and as robinph said, there's potentially a lack of discipline in the coffee areas.

Edit:

Alok Sharma is right if he's talking about the number of tests, not the number of people tested:

Tests People tested Positive Deaths in all settings
Daily 237,142 Unavailable 874 171
Total 8,309,929 Unavailable 306,210 42,927