Boris doing an announcement at 4.45pm today

[PrincessHoneysuckle]

Think on BBC

I had this pop up and it seems to be pretty much what I understood from yesterday:

Shared from a Professor Ian Donald , from his Twitter account: Psychologist:Social & Environmental research; behavioural factors in Anti-Microbial Resistance. Emeritus Professor, University of Liverpool

twitter.com/iandonald_psych/status/1238518371651649538

1. The government strategy on coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.

1. This all assumes I'm correct in what I think the govt are doing and why. I could be wrong - and wouldn't be surprised. But it looks to me like. . .

1. A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it.

There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.

1. The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible, who then get immunity to it. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection.

1. That's herd immunity.

Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.

1. That balance is the big risk.

All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.

1. The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.

1. Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.

1. The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable.

10. After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.

11. BUT a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will

12. The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.

13. Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable

14. As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.

But what I don't get is how our strategy is any different to what happened in Italy (and France/Spain) without said strategy? We are stumbling down the same path yet call it a 'plan'

i.e. do nothing, let people mix, then close some venues, then schools and lockdown.
It's the same and look what's happened.

But is it known that once you have it you are immune?

If you can get it more than once, which has been reported, then the UK strategy would still be a bit better than repeated lockdowns. Assuming we do as we have been asked to do!

Curious
Thank you for posting, that's interesting. I think the Italian experience suggests that closing the schools allowed significant numbers to relocate to different parts of Italy, taking the virus with them. Presumably that is why the schools in the UK haven't been closed. Yet. I don't see how the NHS can cope with large scale infections. It can barely cope with annual flu and is completely dysfunctional but revered in quasi religious terms.

I think that one of the reasons for delay has been to train and equip hospitals, setting up beds etc. The BBC and local news lat night identified a number of local hospitals and a number of front line staff who had had training over the last couple of weeks.

I found point 8 interesting. And it did make me think about the reaction in Italy.

I also wondered about the situation in Ireland. The wide spread of dire misinformation there, and the fake news spread across social media, has been truly weird.

Thanks for that Curious. My issue is that there’s a number of assumptions made in that theory and the worrying thing is we just don’t know much about COVID-19 yet. I think the interesting thing will be when this is over and we look back and learn.

But I’m wondering about what you call ‘spread of dire misinformation’ you are referring to? I’ve also been watching italy and the UK and I don’t see misinformation from official sites. But I do admit I may not know a lot

It was Ireland specifically. They seem to have had a lot of misinformation spread about what would be happening. And facebook had a flurry of headlines like £150,000 laid off instantly as businesses close due to COVID 19 measures. Funnily they have all been removed... I am not sure if any of them made it to here.

My issue is that there’s a number of assumptions made in that theory and the worrying thing is we just don’t know much about COVID-19 yet. That's my issue, too. And I thought the above tackled some of it quite well. As opinion pieces go it was well written, not like others I have read, so biased or defensive!

As DH ssaid... who knew we would live to see a time when "That ancient Chinese curse" would become a reality. Interesting times indeed!

Oh! Here it is... see the words 'estimated'? That was reported as fact, wth 10,000 added to the figure. It's bad enough as it is without added bollocks!

www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0316/1123480-coronavirus-ireland/

And look, we get this... today's good news.... maybe...

Meanwhile, 45 people have been the first to test a new vaccine being developed to potentially protect people from coronavirus.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Thanks for posting such a measured analysis of the UK response. I think the UK have taken a very measured and analytical approach to this and are reserving more draconian measures for later, when they are absolutely needed. Timing is everything in a situation like this.

@CuriousaboutSamphire
An interesting post. The UK’s strategy is basically manipulate the population until the virus is impotent, while the vast majority of other countries plan to isolate the population until the virus is impotent.

My concern with the UK strategy are twofold:
1) Even if it succeeds the UK will likely be facing 100,000+ deaths
It isn’t “only” a serious threat to the, say, over 65.s. Even just a 0.1 mortality rate from 55 million infections of those under 65 equates to 55,000 deaths. And many of those over 65 will be unsuccessful in totally isolating for 4+months from the plague of virus outside? Perhaps at least 10% will not succeed.

2) Very few outside the UK consider it a viable strategy
Great economic harm is a given. Deaths are inevitable, but others are looking to restrict to perhaps the low thousands, rather than take a gamble which could see them spiral into six figures.

I cannot but feel the UK’s strategy is far too big of a risk - a gamble. At a much later date perhaps we will have no choice but to opt for a final destination of herd immunity, but for now surely the key is test, test, test (not doing) and isolate (not doing).

I'm trying to maintain an objective view...

1. That only' is terrifying (I am in a vulnerable group) but I don't think strict isolation in other countries will be any more efficacious...

2. That few outside the UK agree is no surprise. They have chosen a different strategy, put it in place earlier and would not, under any circumstances, say to their population "Oops! We got that wrong!" No government would.

Only with hindsight, 5+ years down the line will we start to know which, if any, startegy was in any way effective.

@Popuppippa
“Time is everything”
That is certainly the UK’s mantra.
The WHO’s manta more resembles “speed is everything” (ie, rigorous ,
mass testing, and fast and effective social distancing/isolation).
The WHO’s advice is to play it safe and try to manage the relatively isolated infections as they occur, and eventually recoveries will outnumber new transmissions. The UK’s strategy seems a massive high stakes gamble by comparison. I hope it it pays off.

@Cam77

Yup - I'll take the advice of world-renowned epidemiologists with distinguished careers who specialise in disease control over ill-informed hysteria and people quoting incorrect facts with no basic concept of the science of disease control.

It's really pathetic that so many people are so tribal that they are using this as a two minute hate against 'evil Tories'

I don't understand the two minute bit, but I get why people are angry. It's not tribal - we were a divided country because of Brexit anyway. Politics hasn't been so partisan for a long time.

The thing is, we've had a Tory watch for a decade. The NHS has been hollowed out and we're suffering more because of that. Other countries have invested in their health infrastructure - the Tories have done the opposite.

The situation now is that the Tories are apparently protecting insurance companies at the expense of small businesses.

We have no clarity on many issues and there is a mighty suspicion that at least some lack of clarity comes from the Tory bedded-in position of being dismissive of an entire layer of society.

Millions of people are reliant on an appalling welfare system that keeps them in poverty and cannot afford to stock up to help them cope.

The Tory machine and its effects are being exposed right now. It's not hard to understand why people are furious at them.

Politics inform every bit of our lives, and arguably never more than now.

The Tory machine and its effects are being exposed right now. It's not hard to understand why people are furious at them

The Conservatives got an 80 seat majority in December. The entire phalanx ofLabour's traditional voter base, places which had voted Labour for a century, turned Conservative. Whilst Labour continues to embed itself in the identity politics cul de sac which has made it unelectable. The usual suspects are using this global pandemic to trot out the same two minute hate against 'evil Tories' which they have been peddling for the last decade. But that is yesterday's slogan. It doesn't sell beyond Twitter.

The Conservatives got an 80 seat majority in December. The entire phalanx ofLabour's traditional voter base, places which had voted Labour for a century, turned Conservative

Brexit, yes?

The usual suspects are using this global pandemic to trot out the same two minute hate against 'evil Tories' which they have been peddling for the last decade

Who are the usual suspects? I'm not sure on what platform you're defending the Tories - but it's obviously your absolute right to do so.

We've had a Tory government for 10 years. Wherever we are now, it's down to them.

You're defending the Tory party, others will attack it. Everyone has the same right to do so. That's political freedom within a democracy.

The point is - I think - that some would like the 'Tory bashing' to cease during this crisis. Others will see that politics cannot be left to one side as they dictate every moment of our lives, including now.

Holding governments to account is vital.

I have been reading the scientific articles around cv. In summary they all say we know very little yet about this virus and the way it operates. We know it has mutated once, but we don't know if the mutation is more deadly than the original virus or not. We don't know if the virus can lie dormant in some already infected and reactivate. Everything comes back to - we don't know.
The UK has taken a term from vaccination - herd immunity - and applied to a virus that we know little about. The UK strategy of herd immunity may work long term, or it may kill thousands of people more than any other country, only to have a more deadly mutation emerge, or those infected to have a chance the virus could be reactivated any time they get really ill.

It is a massive gamble. That is the issue with it and it is why WHO are desperately trying to get our government to change tack.

I hold Boris to account for not doing more earlier. He could see what was coming. He should have been spending that time preparing the NHS for this. China built two new hospitals.

We've had a Tory government for 10 years. Wherever we are now, it's down to them

The global pandemic originated in China. Blaming it on the current occupants of Number 10 is laughable.

You're defending the Tory party, others will attack it. Everyone has the same right to do so. That's political freedom within a democracy

Quite so. However, your glib statement that people share your anger at the Conservatives is undermined by your own statement. The Conservatives have been in Downing Street since 2010. In a coalition, then a slim majority reduced to a precarious alliance with the DUP. They got an 80 seat majority. That certainly doesn't suggest widespread anger with the Conservatives. It does however, speak volumes about the dismal state of Labour.....

BovaryX you strongly dislike people criticizing the Tory party. Your constant referencing to Labour shows that you cannot engage in a discussion without falling into partisanship. Who's tribal now, eh?

It is easy to criticize the Tory party on their own merits. I don't need a comparison with another party.

If you don't think there's widespread anger at the Tory party, I wonder where you've been for years, frankly. The ballot box isn't the only part of any political story. But do believe I'm a lone voice in the Tory-loving wilderness, if it makes you happy.

The global pandemic originated in China. Blaming it on the current occupants of Number 10 is laughable

You misunderstood my point completely. You actually thought that I was blaming the pandemic on the Tory party. That's laughable

Reread my post. I'm talking about the hollowed-out NHS and welfare/poverty issues after 10 years of the Tories that are hamstringing our response to the crisis.

I ma hearing widespread anger about how Boris is handling all this.

If you don't think there's widespread anger at the Tory party, I wonder where you've been for years, frankly

Hmm. Yet given the opportunity to vent what is according to you a widespread, decade long fury at the Conservative government, instead millions and millions of former Labour voters delivered an 80 seat Conservative majority. By the way? Your political cliches about the welfare state and NHS? That doesn't work anymore because those slogans are bankrupt. The NHS is a dysfunctional behemoth which is unfit for the 21st century. The UK has one of the most generous welfare states on the planet. I know neither of those facts penetrate Twitter, but there we have it. But hey. Continue to rail against the government. Recycling last century's redundant cliches must keep you entertained.

Bovary Brexit happened. It changed the voting habits of millions for all kinds of nuanced reasons. You seem to be leaving that seismic political event out of your adding up of voters.

You seem to want to attack and insult posters. It's possible to debate without resorting to that.

I'm criticizing an eminently flawed Tory party. I don't feel the need to insult your intelligence for choosing to defend them. Perhaps you could try giving other posters the same civility.

The NHS and the welfare state in the UK have been run into the ground by the Tory party and it's impacting our ability to manage this pandemic.