SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

Cause they said yesterday that they didn't believe banning mass gatherings would work.
As someone said you can change your mind quickly but Jesus, after one day? Doesn't exactly inspire confidence of a well thought out plan. Maybe influenced by Trump finally admitting it is a state of emergency or are they just abandoning the herd immunity thing?
 
How is it a u-turn?

The policy has always been to let things continue as normal until cases increase. Then institute gradual measures for containment. Then gradual measures for delay. Then gradual measures for lockdown. And finally a full lockdown.

All those stages are going to be met at some point. It won't be a u-turn at each.
This

Cause they said yesterday that they didn't believe banning mass gatherings would work.

and



On banning public events this government is not just behind other counties but the private sector, when the premier league has a better plan in place than the British government you know we are in the shits. Again this is a massive change of policy within 24 hours.
 
But why?

Do a lockdown now, there are just a few thousands of infected people, so it is easier to manage. Do a lockdown in 2-3 weeks and there are hundreds of thousands of infected people, so much more difficult to manage the spread.
When the UK finally does a lockdown, it'll be fine for about a week. Then people will gradually start breaking curfew and getting up to no good in the absence of police on the streets. By about week 4, things will be barely holding together.

Now, what if the lockdown doesn't fully work? We might wipe out what little covid-19 exists up until that point, but the moment the lockdown is lifted it would pick up again because we went too early like they have in Seoul.

The chances of a second lockdown holding will be slim.

This is about social management as much as it is about virus management. We definitely have to have a lockdown. But the timing has to be right to flatten the curve's peak, not just it's start.
 
This



and



On banning public events this government is not just behind other counties but private sectors, when the premier league has a better plan that the British you know we are in the shits. Again this is a massive change of policy within 24 hours.

The FA is the worst run organisation on the face of the planet
Government: hold my beer
 
On banning public events this government is not just behind other counties but private sectors, when the premier league has a better plan that the British you know we are in the shits. Again this is a massive change of policy within 24 hours.
This is why it's happened, I assume. Businesses responded with 'that's insane', ignored him, and took decisions themselves.
 
Cause they said yesterday that they didn't believe banning mass gatherings would work.
It wouldn't work at that point since the numbers were so low.

Are you honestly saying that banning mass gatherings was completely off the table for the government forever in perpetuity?

That statement was clearly made in the context of the situation at the time.
 
Because..

What is exponential growth?

To calculate exponential growth, use the formula y(t) = a__ekt, where a is the value at the start, k is the rate of growth or decay, t is time and y(t) is the population's value at time t.

:confused:

A positive second derivative. Also known as, increasing rate of change.
 
When the UK finally does a lockdown, it'll be fine for about a week. Then people will gradually start breaking curfew and getting up to no good in the absence of police on the streets. By about week 4, things will be barely holding together.

Now, what if the lockdown doesn't fully work? We might wipe out what little covid-19 exists up until that point, but the moment the lockdown is lifted it would pick up again because we went too early like they have in Seoul.

The chances of a second lockdown holding will be slim.

This is about social management as much as it is about virus management. We definitely have to have a lockdown. But the timing has to be right to flatten the curve's peak, not just it's start.
I've read this theory, and while there are some merits on it, I don't really agree with it. I mean, at the end of the day, you can force the people to stay at home. In fact, with the situation getting worse, people will prefer staying at home. And well, put the lockdown now, you can still limit the spread. When hundreds of thousands are going to get infected (likely by the end of the month, or beginning of April), what will a lockdown achieve?

The peak is likely going to be reached around June, when tens of millions are projected to be infected. What would a lockdown achieve at that stage? Die at home, I guess.

Anyway, the fact that they are starting to do a U-turn 1 day after, it doesn't really inspire confidence, right? But better to realize early that it was fecked up plan on the first place.
 
As someone said you can change your mind quickly but Jesus, after one day? Doesn't exactly inspire confidence of a well thought out plan. Maybe influenced by Trump finally admitting it is a state of emergency or are they just abandoning the herd immunity thing?
I think it's a mix of Trump's admission and all the football cancellations, this government haven't got a clue they are clearly just winging it and hoping it goes away to then come out and say "we did it"
 
When the UK finally does a lockdown, it'll be fine for about a week. Then people will gradually start breaking curfew and getting up to no good in the absence of police on the streets. By about week 4, things will be barely holding together.

Now, what if the lockdown doesn't fully work? We might wipe out what little covid-19 exists up until that point, but the moment the lockdown is lifted it would pick up again because we went too early like they have in Seoul.

The chances of a second lockdown holding will be slim.

This is about social management as much as it is about virus management. We definitely have to have a lockdown. But the timing has to be right to flatten the curve's peak, not just it's start.

Is a good part of social management going against every other government and then turning that around the next day?
 
It wouldn't work at that point since the numbers were so low.

Are you honestly saying that banning mass gatherings was completely off the table for the government forever in perpetuity?
I'm saying you don't say banning mass gatherings wouldn't work, if you think you may need to leak that you're about to ban mass gatherings a day later.

To do so, is to change strategy 180. In a 'U' shaped fashion.
 
When the UK finally does a lockdown, it'll be fine for about a week. Then people will gradually start breaking curfew and getting up to no good in the absence of police on the streets. By about week 4, things will be barely holding together.

Now, what if the lockdown doesn't fully work? We might wipe out what little covid-19 exists up until that point, but the moment the lockdown is lifted it would pick up again because we went too early like they have in Seoul.

The chances of a second lockdown holding will be slim.

This is about social management as much as it is about virus management. We definitely have to have a lockdown. But the timing has to be right to flatten the curve's peak, not just it's start.
Why will there be a lack of police on the streets they will need to still be patrolling.
 
It wouldn't work at that point since the numbers were so low.

If numbers are so important, why have they

a) stopped testing anyone who isn't actually in hospital with symptoms, and

b) told anyone at home with symptoms they don't even need to know you are ill and not report it.
 
It wouldn't work at that point since the numbers were so low.

Are you honestly saying that banning mass gatherings was completely off the table for the government forever in perpetuity?

That statement was clearly made in the context of the situation at the time.

There really is no need for this desperate defence. They've done the right thing in actually starting to do something but it's as clear a u-turn as you can get.

This wasn't about a plan laid out they responded to accusations over the last few days by doing interviews to defend the position and say the science said it wasn't necessary. If you think they did that waiting for another 100 odd people to be infected first then thats really naive.
 
When are the government expected to tell people to work from home where possible? We feel we should've done it this week but they have prepared us for it now at least.
 
It wouldn't work at that point since the numbers were so low.

Are you honestly saying that banning mass gatherings was completely off the table for the government forever in perpetuity?

That statement was clearly made in the context of the situation at the time.
There mouthpieces on the TV today were saying that it was too early to ban mass gatherings then a couple of hours later they change their minds? Today's figures were already out so there was no change in data.
 
It wouldn't work at that point since the numbers were so low.

Are you honestly saying that banning mass gatherings was completely off the table for the government forever in perpetuity?

That statement was clearly made in the context of the situation at the time.
The situation at the time ? It was mere hours before the majority of the premier League tested positive.
 
I'm saying you don't say banning mass gatherings wouldn't work, if you think you may need to leak that you're about to ban mass gatherings a day later.

To do so, is to change strategy 180. In a 'U' shaped fashion.
I can't believe you've got me fecking defending Boris Johnson.

Anyway, he said this on Tuesday:
“There’s no question that this is going to become a significant, a much more significant outbreak than it currently is — that’s obvious to everyone — but it is vital that we take the steps that we think are necessary at the right time and we follow the science,” he said.

The steps at each stage are going to necessarily be different. We've progressed from one stage to the next, and therefore the policy has changed accordingly.

When we eventually get a full lockdown, that won't be a u-turn either.
 
How is it a u-turn?

The policy has always been to let things continue as normal until cases increase. Then institute gradual measures for containment. Then gradual measures for delay. Then gradual measures for lockdown. And finally a full lockdown.

All those stages are going to be met at some point. It won't be a u-turn at each.

It's boring, people have their own agenda. In large I don't think there's any point discussing.
 
The situation at the time ? It was mere hours before the majority of the premier League tested positive.
Which sounds like a reasonable trigger point for postponing the season. It took the same amount of time in Italy after that Juve player tested positive.
 
The situation at the time ? It was mere hours before the majority of the premier League tested positive.

And that just demonstrates how quickly a situation can change and how difficult it is to make any decision.
 
Hoping they strong arm the majority of the larger London employers to support WFH pronto. There's a clear need to reduce the traffic into and out of London.
 
I'm saying you don't say banning mass gatherings wouldn't work, if you think you may need to leak that you're about to ban mass gatherings a day later.

To do so, is to change strategy 180. In a 'U' shaped fashion.
Boris Johnson's a cnut. I wouldn't put much stock into what he says. I'm concentrating more on the rationale behind the overall plan, rather than the waffle used to communicate it.
 
Boris Johnson's a cnut. I wouldn't put much stock into what he says. I'm concentrating more on the rationale behind the overall plan, rather than the waffle used to communicate it.
We're not arguing that Boris Johnson swore to his nearest and dearest yesterday that under no circumstances would he ever shut down mass gatherings. We're arguing it's an embarrassing u-turn to state that it wouldn't work and a day later leak that it's now the policy.
 
Russia hasn't been affected badly at all from what I hear from my relatives. Also, Russia is huge but otherwise the population is only 140 million or so. They've got quite strict rules in place if one doesn't isolate -- up to 5 years in prison -- and you can bet your bottom dollar those sentences will be handed down. Also, I absolutely hear nothing from VK (russian social media platform akin to Facebook) which to my knowledge isn't as censored as some would have you believe. I see plenty of articles criticising the central government and lots of comments so I don't expect this to be censored either. So I think thankfully Russia are coping well at the minute. I've no idea about India though.

As they say: in Russia, you infect the coronavirus.
If it is anything like Ukraine, I’d be utterly stunned if there was any sort of provision for testing outside of the major cities that doesn’t then require tests to be sent to major cities. I think it is matter of time for this part of the world, unless they can actually contain the limited number of cases and shut the borders.

The problem is can you keep the borders closed for months whilst the virus is everywhere else?

My wife and I have written off any prospect of her parents coming from Ukraine to visit their new born grandchild in the next couple of months. They’re likely to have problems returning home if exposed here.
 
Last edited:
As a nation, are we even capable of a lockdown? Would people listen?

We need to reduce the burden on the NHS ASAP with non Covid related issues. Shutting down clubs and pubs on Friday and Saturday nights to reduce burden on 999 services should be done first, and work from home if possible, and slowly increase measures over the next 4 weeks as we get to, hopefully, a lessened peak