Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2021, 09:43:09 am

Login with username, password and session length

@vscofficial

Links


FSA logo

Author Topic: Coronavirus  (Read 420512 times)

no eyed deer and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

wilts rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 7994
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1200 on March 28, 2020, 07:57:12 am by wilts rover »
That's correct sydney.

They could give £14m to a ferry company that didn't have any ferries but not afford protective equipment for the NHS in case a pandemic broke out. How did that work out?



(want to hide these ads? Join the VSC today!)

Donnywolf

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 16004
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1201 on March 28, 2020, 08:23:38 am by Donnywolf »
In fact Wilts - we probably wont ever know the true "Ferry" cost but just putting in Grayling Ferries on Google came up with this at (a minimum of) 50 Million quid

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/01/chris-grayling-cancels-ferry-contracts-at-extra-50m-cost-to-taxpayers-brexit

I cant be a***d to read it as I dont want my blood to boil but I would love to know the "estimated" costs for doing nothing but FAIL

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1202 on March 28, 2020, 08:41:09 am by BillyStubbsTears »
Have a think about joining in with this. Even if you're perfectly fit and well.

https://covid.joinzoe.com/

In the absence of mass testing, self-reporting might be the best we can do to get an idea of how many people have CV-19 and where the hotspots are.

We desperately need that info to help tweak the models, and decide where the hard lockdowns and releases should be.

If we get a good handle on that, it WILL allow us to make decisions that WILL save thousands of lives, billions of pounds and millions of person-days on lockdown.


SydneyRover

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 8220
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1203 on March 28, 2020, 08:50:54 am by SydneyRover »
It looks like there is more direction and help at VSC than from the government  :)

tyke1962

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1843
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1204 on March 28, 2020, 10:34:24 am by tyke1962 »
According to a Gallup poll out today in the states, Donald Trumps presidency and his policies have the highest approval he has ever had of 49% of the electorate.
  And his handling of the Covid 19 crisis has seen him gain in the last week a 5% approval in the so called independent vote not aligned to any of the two parties.
  If that carries on the toaster will not switch on Tyke.


Even Corbyn cut a 20 point opinion poll deficit down to absolutely nothing in 2017 Selby in a matter of weeks .

I wouldn't be giving the American opinion polls too much credence with what's coming down the road for their population over the coming months .

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1205 on March 28, 2020, 10:49:19 am by BillyStubbsTears »
Wow.

The editor of The Lancet is really laying into the CMO, CSA and Chief Exec of the NHS here.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30727-3/fulltext

wilts rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 7994
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1206 on March 28, 2020, 11:34:48 am by wilts rover »
If you read that in conjunction with the Sunday Times piece from last weekend you can only conclude that when the government say they are following the scientific advice from experts - this means they are only following the scientific advice of experts that Dominic Cummings believes in.

Filo

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 26656
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1207 on March 28, 2020, 11:40:43 am by Filo »
If you read that in conjunction with the Sunday Times piece from last weekend you can only conclude that when the government say they are following the scientific advice from experts - this means they are only following the scientific advice of experts that Dominic Cummings believes in.

Yes Dominic Cummings, the man that was pushing for the herd immunity strategy, scuttling out of Downing Street as fast as he could when it was announced that Boris had it, I guess herd immunity does not apply to him then?

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1208 on March 28, 2020, 11:50:14 am by BillyStubbsTears »
If you read that in conjunction with the Sunday Times piece from last weekend you can only conclude that when the government say they are following the scientific advice from experts - this means they are only following the scientific advice of experts that Dominic Cummings believes in.

That's been pretty much what I've been wondering.

It appears that the CSA, Ballance, was a big pusher of the HI idea. There were very, very few other scientific experts who gave that idea the time of day. But Cummings latched onto it, and that appears to have been Govt policy up to about 10 March.

There are some enormous questions to answer when this is over.

adamtherover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2155
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1209 on March 28, 2020, 12:09:23 pm by adamtherover »
Reading the basic theory on HI, it suggests that the herd has to rely on a good percentage to have natural immunity, or have been vaccinated?   
As none of this has happened or been proven, can any of the more scientifically minded folk on here explain why the government appeared at first to be pushing HI?
I suppose the next generation possibly might benefit, if a parent got.CV19, and developed anti bodies, which was then passed onto a child, but it seems to put the first wave at risk?
If I have missed anything obvious i am more then open to have it explained in laymans terms?

River Don

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 6308
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1210 on March 28, 2020, 12:22:46 pm by River Don »
Here's a thought.

Foot and mouth disease is a highly contageuos virus. When there is an outbreak of foot and mouth, they demand farmers and vets disinfect footwear, they walk through trays of disinfectant. They even disinfect tyres of vehicles...

So wouldn't it be an idea to put disinfectant washes for people to walk through at the entrance to supermarkets? Or would that have little benefit?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2020, 12:27:16 pm by River Don »

Copps is Magic

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1211 on March 28, 2020, 12:23:56 pm by Copps is Magic »
Here's a thought.

Foot and mouth disease is a highly contageuos virus. When there is an outbreak of foo and mouth, they demand farmers and vets disinfect footwear, they walk through trays of disinfectant. They even disinfect tyres of vehicles...

So wouldn't it be an idea to put disinfectant washes for people to walk through at the entrance to supermarkets? Or would that have little benefit?

Its already in operation here. Can't enter supermarkets without disinfecting.

Filo

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 26656
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1212 on March 28, 2020, 12:49:16 pm by Filo »
Here's a thought.

Foot and mouth disease is a highly contageuos virus. When there is an outbreak of foot and mouth, they demand farmers and vets disinfect footwear, they walk through trays of disinfectant. They even disinfect tyres of vehicles...

So wouldn't it be an idea to put disinfectant washes for people to walk through at the entrance to supermarkets? Or would that have little benefit?

They also slaughter all infected cattle 🤪

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1213 on March 28, 2020, 01:09:52 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Adam

I have no idea how the concept of HI could possibly have been thought of as a primary policy unless those making that policy were effectively accepting that we would have a spike in cases that would utterly overwhelm the NHS for several weeks. That's why I reacted with incredulity two weeks back when Albie first pointed out on here that HI was Govt policy.

I say that as someone who has no epidemiology background, but as someone who is comfortable dealing with numbers and drawing conclusions.

I heard back in mid-Feb, Neil Ferguson from Imperial College, saying that in the absence of drastic measures, he expected this infection to double every 5 days or so, to kill 1% of those it affected and to cause critical but treatable illness in maybe 5%. And although he didn't use the term HI, he alluded to it by saying he'd expect the epidemic to infect 40-80% of us (i.e. it wouldn't be able to spread more widely than that because we'd have HI by then).

With those numbers, it was relatively easy to see that, if that 5 day doubling wasn't stopped, the NHS would be utterly overwhelmed by critical illness cases by mid-April. Ferguson said he estimated we had several 100 actual cases in mid-Feb. With a 5 day doubling time, that becomes maybe a million by mid-April. 5% of those being critical is 50,000. But we only have 5000 ventilator ICU beds.


By mid May, unchecked,  there might be half the population infected, maybe 1million needing ICU treatment -  200 times more people needing critical care than we had beds for.

At that time, a policy of soft mitigation (hand washing, distancing) was all that Govt was pushing. I'd assumed they were getting advice that this would be enough to massively increase the 5 day doubling time and "flatten the peak".

Turns out that was bullshit. It was never remotely possibly to flatten the peak sufficiently without the sort of lockdown we now have. HI as a policy was effectively accepting that 50-60% of us would get infected over the next few weeks.

That means that the policy of HI was implicitly accepting that we would have half a million deaths from CV-19 in May-June and a non-functioning NHS from April-Aug leading to God knows how many other avoidable deaths.

Back in early March, I hadn't fully realised there was an alternative. I thought we maybe had to face that because the economic effect of a huge shutdown would be worse. I didn't have the economic knowledge to take in the fact that we actually DO have mechanisms to deal with the effects of a lockdown. So there always WAS an alternative. It's just that, from late Jan to early March, the Govt was choosing not to follow the alternative, and was having a policy of (in the reported words of Dominic Cummings from late Feb) "protecting the economy first and if a few pensioners die, too bad".

That approach cost us six weeks of prep. And, quite incredibly, while Govt policy was to accept the NHS being overwhelmed, no one was lifting a f**king finger to bring in more PPE for NHS staff.

Like I say, we are where we are now. But there is a f**king huge inquest to be had when this is over.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2020, 01:12:08 pm by BillyStubbsTears »

adamtherover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2155
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1214 on March 28, 2020, 01:31:58 pm by adamtherover »
Adam

I have no idea how the concept of HI could possibly have been thought of as a primary policy unless those making that policy were effectively accepting that we would have a spike in cases that would utterly overwhelm the NHS for several weeks. That's why I reacted with incredulity two weeks back when Albie first pointed out on here that HI was Govt policy.

I say that as someone who has no epidemiology background, but as someone who is comfortable dealing with numbers and drawing conclusions.

I heard back in mid-Feb, Neil Ferguson from Imperial College, saying that in the absence of drastic measures, he expected this infection to double every 5 days or so, to kill 1% of those it affected and to cause critical but treatable illness in maybe 5%. And although he didn't use the term HI, he alluded to it by saying he'd expect the epidemic to infect 40-80% of us (i.e. it wouldn't be able to spread more widely than that because we'd have HI by then).

With those numbers, it was relatively easy to see that, if that 5 day doubling wasn't stopped, the NHS would be utterly overwhelmed by critical illness cases by mid-April. Ferguson said he estimated we had several 100 actual cases in mid-Feb. With a 5 day doubling time, that becomes maybe a million by mid-April. 5% of those being critical is 50,000. But we only have 5000 ventilator ICU beds.


By mid May, unchecked,  there might be half the population infected, maybe 1million needing ICU treatment -  200 times more people needing critical care than we had beds for.

At that time, a policy of soft mitigation (hand washing, distancing) was all that Govt was pushing. I'd assumed they were getting advice that this would be enough to massively increase the 5 day doubling time and "flatten the peak".

Turns out that was bullshit. It was never remotely possibly to flatten the peak sufficiently without the sort of lockdown we now have. HI as a policy was effectively accepting that 50-60% of us would get infected over the next few weeks.

That means that the policy of HI was implicitly accepting that we would have half a million deaths from CV-19 in May-June and a non-functioning NHS from April-Aug leading to God knows how many other avoidable deaths.

Back in early March, I hadn't fully realised there was an alternative. I thought we maybe had to face that because the economic effect of a huge shutdown would be worse. I didn't have the economic knowledge to take in the fact that we actually DO have mechanisms to deal with the effects of a lockdown. So there always WAS an alternative. It's just that, from late Jan to early March, the Govt was choosing not to follow the alternative, and was having a policy of (in the reported words of Dominic Cummings from late Feb) "protecting the economy first and if a few pensioners die, too bad".

That approach cost us six weeks of prep. And, quite incredibly, while Govt policy was to accept the NHS being overwhelmed, no one was lifting a f**king finger to bring in more PPE for NHS staff.

Like I say, we are where we are now. But there is a f**king huge inquest to be had when this is over.
thanks for that bst,  more or less what I thought.
From day one ive been a supporter of "I know theres.a.big problem, but lets.not look at the worst case scenario as surely.the governemnt would implement plans to stop the apocalypse!"

Maybe I had too much faith in our elected leaders?

Filo

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 26656
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1215 on March 28, 2020, 02:13:37 pm by Filo »
260 deaths in last 24 hours

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1216 on March 28, 2020, 02:33:24 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Adam

This has been my worry all along.

Dominic Cummings is a dangerous megalomaniac. He is utterly convinced that he knows more than anyone else in Whitehall. And he has a decade long track record of getting seduced by the latest simplified scientific idea he has read about. I've been reading his blog for years. It is terrifying and I'd hoped all this time that he got nowhere remotely close to being in charge. But here we are now, with him making the decisions.

Johnson is renown for being lazy and bored by detail. He's brought Cummings in to do the thinking for him.

This is looking more and more like February was the sort of disaster that was all too predictable with those two in charge.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1217 on March 28, 2020, 02:33:50 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
260 deaths in last 24 hours

f**k. That's not good. We are clearly off the China trend now.

Filo

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 26656
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1218 on March 28, 2020, 02:44:03 pm by Filo »
260 deaths in last 24 hours

f**k. That's not good. We are clearly off the China trend now.
Wheres  our strong leadership, the lockdown needs enforcing by police and army now, if not out of hand already, its getting there at an alarming rate. In a wierd sort of way I’m glad my parents are no longer here to go through this

ian1980

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1041
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1219 on March 28, 2020, 02:49:50 pm by ian1980 »
This is still the result of people’s behaviour from last week, when some people thought it a good idea to get one more piss up in before the restrictions and generally not following the advice.

I’ve popped to the supermarket earlier and it appears the message might finally be getting through, the trouble is there is about a weeks lag before the effects of the restrictions start to have an impact

wilts rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 7994
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1220 on March 28, 2020, 02:52:28 pm by wilts rover »
Met police currently have a 30% sick rate.

Sproty posted the figures a while back. There are not enough police/army in the country to lockdown London never mind the whole country - not that they matter when you still have buses/trains running & non-essential businesses such as building sites & call-centres still open.

wilts rover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 7994
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1221 on March 28, 2020, 02:54:23 pm by wilts rover »
This is still the result of people’s behaviour from last week, when some people thought it a good idea to get one more piss up in before the restrictions and generally not following the advice.

I’ve popped to the supermarket earlier and it appears the message might finally be getting through, the trouble is there is about a weeks lag before the effects of the restrictions start to have an impact

It takes 7 days for the symptoms to show and then another 7 for them to be fatal. These are people who became ill a fortnight ago - when schools were still open and just after Cheltenham.

ian1980

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 1041
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1222 on March 28, 2020, 03:01:24 pm by ian1980 »
Argh right.

So we’ve probably got another week at least of high increases then before we can hope to see the restrictions taking effect. Not going to be a great week ahead then

adamtherover

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 2155
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1223 on March 28, 2020, 03:02:26 pm by adamtherover »
260 deaths in last 24 hours

f**k. That's not good. We are clearly off the China trend now.
Wheres  our strong leadership, the lockdown needs enforcing by police and army now, if not out of hand already, its getting there at an alarming rate. In a wierd sort of way I’m glad my parents are no longer here to go through this
just been for my daily walk, streets were deserted!!!  Some folk are listening.... :-)

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1224 on March 28, 2020, 03:07:48 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Argh right.

So we’ve probably got another week at least of high increases then before we can hope to see the restrictions taking effect. Not going to be a great week ahead then

The worry is that our time for deaths to double is going UP, not down.

5-10 days ago, the doubling time was every 3.5-4 days.

Over the past week it has been 2.5-3 days.

Every other country barring the USA has managed to keep the doubling time increasing. The fact that ours has reduced markedly is a very big worry.

big fat yorkshire pudding

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 11721
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1225 on March 28, 2020, 03:15:39 pm by big fat yorkshire pudding »
260 deaths in last 24 hours

f**k. That's not good. We are clearly off the China trend now.
Wheres  our strong leadership, the lockdown needs enforcing by police and army now, if not out of hand already, its getting there at an alarming rate. In a wierd sort of way I’m glad my parents are no longer here to go through this
just been for my daily walk, streets were deserted!!!  Some folk are listening.... :-)

To a point. I run every day and it to me has been getting busier through the week though quieter today with the weather not so good.

Still seen some baffling things out and about though.

Bentley Bullet

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 15482
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1226 on March 28, 2020, 03:31:28 pm by Bentley Bullet »
It's almost like some of us are demanding a nanny state so as to be ordered what to do instead of merely advised.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1227 on March 28, 2020, 03:40:36 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
BB

I'd suggest many of us are doing the sensible things and have been doing for some weeks. What's needed is a f**king firm hand for the stupid few percent who are still playing silly f**kers and think this doesn't apply to them.

Bentley Bullet

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 15482
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1228 on March 28, 2020, 03:50:47 pm by Bentley Bullet »
BST, Yes, it's those who appear to be demanding a nanny state. It's like they're not responsible for themselves, or others because that's the government's responsibility, and until the government makes it law to act sensibly, their behaviour is the government's fault.

BillyStubbsTears

  • VSC Member
  • Posts: 28585
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #1229 on March 28, 2020, 04:03:19 pm by BillyStubbsTears »
Right. I'm out.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2012