'total guess 10 million - even if you're right that stll leaes over 50 million who wouldn't be under house arrest who could be economically productive. Yes,some in the not vulnerable category would die but prove to me that this would overwhelm the NHS - you're just indulging in speculation with no evidence. As for who is vulnerable to this disease we DO have the evidence.Mark wrote:Point 1boisdevie wrote:1. Identify the most vulnerable and help them to isolate.
2. Let everyone else who statistically won't need the NHS and won't die just get on with it, get the virus, survive the virus and we get to herd immunity.
Is that simple enough for you and it wasn't 'well hidden' - you're being obtuse. Now pick apart my logic.
OK, we only 'lock down' everybody over 60(?), those with diabetes, heart disease, COPD......., there's also increasing evidence of greater vulnerability in certain ethnic communities - add them in too ?
Total guess - 10 million people ?
However, they'd still need looking after by their family/friends/carers
Have we got enough 'help' to support this number ??
Point 2
A significant number of people who are not considered 'vulnerable' will still get it, and quicker. Even if they don't die, many will still be left with life changing conditions.
This approach would also likely overwhelm the NHS. Once this is over, it might be nice to have some Doctors, Nurses and Care Workers that are still alive ?
New coronavirus in/from China
Moderator: Peak Moderation
I don't remember the SARS outbreak in detail, but I'm sure we'd have been watching it from afar as it developed/progressed.stumuz1 wrote:Same question for you Mark,Mark wrote:
On the positive side, I think the speed in which the Nightingale Hospitals have been set up has been amazing.
Would you have locked down the country in 2003 when SARS broke out? It had the same R0 according to wiki.
Maybe we'd have been better prepared and taken different actions in 2003 ?
Or maybe we just 'gambled' and got lucky ?
We defo should have learnt from it though.
My issues with HMG are:
1. They knew this was coming, but didn't prepare
Remember the 7Ps - Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
2. When it arrived, we saw how it was developing elsewhere, and failed to react quickly enough
Yes, forgot about them.Mark wrote: certain ethnic communities - add them in too ?
Total guess - 10 million people ?
However, they'd still need looking after by their family/friends/carers
Have we got enough 'help' to support this number ??
That is another factor in this 'novel' virus.
Also, I should think, i don't know, relative to demographics, a higher proportion of BAME work for the NHS
A hilarious quote from the morons in the Telegraph:
'What can never be repaired is the long-term damage to children’s education, or the lives of those whose cancers might lie undetected in this interregnum. A Norwegian study this week pointed out that iPads are no substitute for teachers. Younger pupils never fully make up lost ground, it says, so their adult earning potential is permanently lowered by £650 for every week they miss school. In Britain, no one is even attempting such calculations.'
Since most of the UK workforce would be happy to earn £15/hr , it is quite mystifying to learn that a week away from school guarantees them a tramps life of zero income. Come to think of it, are there any British tramps nowadays?
'What can never be repaired is the long-term damage to children’s education, or the lives of those whose cancers might lie undetected in this interregnum. A Norwegian study this week pointed out that iPads are no substitute for teachers. Younger pupils never fully make up lost ground, it says, so their adult earning potential is permanently lowered by £650 for every week they miss school. In Britain, no one is even attempting such calculations.'
Since most of the UK workforce would be happy to earn £15/hr , it is quite mystifying to learn that a week away from school guarantees them a tramps life of zero income. Come to think of it, are there any British tramps nowadays?
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13496
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
It was an intentional decision, not a cock-up. Johnson and Cummings could see a potential outcome where the country was locked down to stop the spread, with no hope of a vaccine in sight any time soon, and no exit strategy, and the economy being strangled. They decided this outcome was too economically catastrophic, so went for "herd immunity" instead. They didn't care how overwhelmed the NHS was. They couldn't give a shit about the consequences for the people who work for the NHS. They just didn't want to end up in precisely the situation we are now in.Mark wrote:I don't remember the SARS outbreak in detail, but I'm sure we'd have been watching it from afar as it developed/progressed.stumuz1 wrote:Same question for you Mark,Mark wrote:
On the positive side, I think the speed in which the Nightingale Hospitals have been set up has been amazing.
Would you have locked down the country in 2003 when SARS broke out? It had the same R0 according to wiki.
Maybe we'd have been better prepared and taken different actions in 2003 ?
Or maybe we just 'gambled' and got lucky ?
We defo should have learnt from it though.
My issues with HMG are:
1. They knew this was coming, but didn't prepare
Remember the 7Ps - Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
2. When it arrived, we saw how it was developing elsewhere, and failed to react quickly enough
There was another way, and that was to prepare for testing on a massive scale and go for aggressive contact-tracing and quarantining of potential cases. But they saw that as too much effort and too expensive also.
It has been an abject failure of leadership. Dishonest, cowardly and poorly thought through.
Last edited by UndercoverElephant on 17 Apr 2020, 12:23, edited 1 time in total.
So the 26.5 will not be affected by Covid-19? Only their families?vtsnowedin wrote:With 24 million family members to support?stumuz1 wrote:Working population UK =26.5Mboisdevie wrote: 'total guess 10 million - even if you're right that stll leaes over 50 million who wouldn't be under house arrest who could be economically productive. .
Prove to me that being BAME makes you more susceptible to the virus. Is the virus racist?stumuz1 wrote:Yes, forgot about them.Mark wrote: certain ethnic communities - add them in too ?
Total guess - 10 million people ?
However, they'd still need looking after by their family/friends/carers
Have we got enough 'help' to support this number ??
That is another factor in this 'novel' virus.
Also, I should think, i don't know, relative to demographics, a higher proportion of BAME work for the NHS
So,UndercoverElephant wrote:It was an intentional decision, not a cock-up. Johnson and Cummings could see a potential outcome where the country was locked down to stop the spread, with no hope of a vaccine in sight any time soon, and no exit strategy, and the economy being strangled. They decided this outcome was too economically catastrophic, so went for "herd immunity" instead. They didn't care how overwhelmed the NHS was. They couldn't give a shit about the consequences for the people who work for the NHS. They just didn't want to end up in precisely the situation we are now in.Mark wrote:I don't remember the SARS outbreak in detail, but I'm sure we'd have been watching it from afar as it developed/progressed.stumuz1 wrote: Same question for you Mark,
Would you have locked down the country in 2003 when SARS broke out? It had the same R0 according to wiki.
Maybe we'd have been better prepared and taken different actions in 2003 ?
Or maybe we just 'gambled' and got lucky ?
We defo should have learnt from it though.
My issues with HMG are:
1. They knew this was coming, but didn't prepare
Remember the 7Ps - Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
2. When it arrived, we saw how it was developing elsewhere, and failed to react quickly enough
There was another way, and that was to prepare for testing on a massive scale and go for aggressive contact-tracing and quarantining of potential cases. But they saw that as too much effort and too expensive also.
It has been an abject failure of leadership. Dishonest, cowardly and poorly thought through.
Would you have locked down the country in 2003 when SARS broke out?
"Sweden has shown how not to tackle coronavirus, as it fights now to save face"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ion-widget
Possibly behind a paywall ... but it highlights the political issues in Sweden over-riding the medical issues.
"... in consensus-oriented Sweden, no other views were taken seriously, until death rates started creeping up. Finland now counts 72 dead, Norway 150 and Denmark (the by far most densely populated Nordic country) 321. Sweden? 1333.
Also it notes that the old in Sweden live alone or in care homes ... out of sight, out of mind.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ion-widget
Possibly behind a paywall ... but it highlights the political issues in Sweden over-riding the medical issues.
"... in consensus-oriented Sweden, no other views were taken seriously, until death rates started creeping up. Finland now counts 72 dead, Norway 150 and Denmark (the by far most densely populated Nordic country) 321. Sweden? 1333.
Also it notes that the old in Sweden live alone or in care homes ... out of sight, out of mind.
I'm sorry but I don't take 'according to Radio 4' as any kind of proof on any subject. I meant something from a professional medical body.stumuz1 wrote:Well, according to radio 4 this morning. Yes.boisdevie wrote:
Prove to me that being BAME makes you more susceptible to the virus. Is the virus racist?