COVID19

[kukushkin88]

Even at this early stage we can know that if you act early you will get a better outcome than acting later ceteris paribus. But all other things aren't equal as Jon points out comprehensively I think. I think we should be applying max pressure to govt to up testing rates, improve ppe supply chains, improve the flow of cash support and other practical things but save the lessons learned about intervention and restricting liberty for a later time.

As a by the by, on the website kuku referred to the other day that showed the UK wasn't in the top 40 safest places (incredibly Belgium was but I'm not sure that totally undermines it) one of the tables also showed the UK as 4th in the world in terms of providing financial support to people and business so some things are very good about our response.

Back to intervention,  do Belgium and Sweden demonstrate that there are many factors at play in terms of deaths per capita and in absolute terms and that we don't yet know enough to draw solid conclusions. Belgium locked down more or less the same day as Ireland. The outcome is very different.

It is an interesting site, I was planning to revisit it today. Belgium has the problem of it’s own international travel hub and a lot of traffic from Schipol as well. Was good to see the U.K. high up on some metrics but to be there on financial support, they must be assuming best case for the roll out of what’s been promised and at best, there’s mixed messages to date on that point.

So you can cite them on negatives but question their assessment when it's positive. Behave

No, I completely agree that we need to look more at their methodology, I agree that seeing Belgium toward the top for safety is concerning. I didn't comment on any aspect of the content, other than that there was lots of it and it wasn't easy to navigate on a phone. I only linked it because "people seem to like" Brillo and I said this.

The ‘no’ response wasn’t directed toward the instruction to “Behave”, I’m more than happy to behave 😊.

The key lesson about the lockdown that is still relevant, is that the more completely you lockdown, the more control you have when you release it. We still have millions (a completely unknown number but it will be some measure of millions) of households where there may be symptomatic and asymptomatic potentially contagious people, the countries that locked down to a greater extent, will have far fewer of these instances and have a much more controlled opportunity for a phased return to normal. The better way to protect the economy, would have been a more extreme lockdown. I’d be concerned with  Hannan/Oakeshott/Hodges/Pearson etc, that their heads might explode when they realise. It’s probably partly why the government won’t talk exit strategy, because we can’t really have one atm, from our situation.

I’m happy to focus on PPE, testing, financial support in the U.K from now. On the testing and PPE, it’s an absolute car crash of incompetence and dishonesty at the political level. I don’t know much about the finance side, I’ll write about the other two later.

[neeko]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

[kukushkin88]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

[nirvana]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I take your ticket on this but in the end it will have to be a political choice where nothing will be ideal. I don't think there's any sensible way to take any dialogue from the public sphere and synthesise that into ' the country thinks this'.

However, I'm also sure that we will have a couple of weeks lead in where the conversation will turn to the ending of the lockdown to nudge people towards it. It feels to me like the Government is right to not take the conversation in this direction while numbers of deaths are still so high.

[neeko]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

[nirvana]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

[Doobs]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Smoking was definitely a risk factor on something I saw too.   They have asked people to stop.   Glad I did now.

[Marky147]

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Smoking was definitely a risk factor on something I saw too.   They have asked people to stop.   Glad I did now.

My old man would be the same as Glenn, lol.

Was most chirpy when telling me that the consultant told him being a smoker is beneficial with ulcerative colitis.

[Marky147]

https://twitter.com/37mediagroup/status/1250201789812682754

Internet will always get you

[kukushkin88]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

What are we measuring for "the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for"?

We're already past the top end of the fatalities, we were told 20,000 was the top end, then we were told that number was a good outcome by Vallance and Powis. Once we have ONS data up to today, we'll see that we're already well past 20,000. Can't be an economic target that we're pleased with. About 15% of the way to the testing target, can't be that. Massive PPE shortage, a problem that we aren't able to resolve. 53 Healthcare workers dead.

[kukushkin88]

Just linking this because it’s mildly interesting that Jeremy Hunt likes it:

https://twitter.com/mojitobab/status/1250458634980659201?s=21

[nirvana]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

What are we measuring for "the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for"?

We're already past the top end of the fatalities, we were told 20,000 was the top end, then we were told that number was a good outcome by Vallance and Powis. Once we have ONS data up to today, we'll see that we're already well past 20,000. Can't be an economic target that we're pleased with. About 15% of the way to the testing target, can't be that. Massive PPE shortage, a problem that we aren't able to resolve. 53 Healthcare workers dead.

Well, I think the primary short term outcome that was aimed for was to ensure the NHS wasn't overwhelmed with 20,000 zombies fighting for the last ventilator in town, not that less than 20,000 died. This message was banged home repeatedly, the top end estimates for death at the start of the lockdown period was way higher than 20k.

In this sense, so far, it's as good an outcome as was aimed for. There weren't many other goals as far as I can recollect.

You and many others of course, might not like it, you may think the narrow goal was terrible, you may think a lot of things but the Govt, NHS, PHE, CMO etc will see this as a success. n.b the NHS is just about the world's largest org so, collectively I think the NHS will see it as a success despite extreme hardship and literal life on the line pressures for the frontline staff.

[Jon MW]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

What are we measuring for "the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for"?

We're already past the top end of the fatalities, we were told 20,000 was the top end, then we were told that number was a good outcome by Vallance and Powis. Once we have ONS data up to today, we'll see that we're already well past 20,000. Can't be an economic target that we're pleased with. About 15% of the way to the testing target, can't be that. Massive PPE shortage, a problem that we aren't able to resolve. 53 Healthcare workers dead.

"we were told 20,000 was the top end"

When were we told this?

I'm not saying it hasn't been said, but I remember the exact words, "we'll be doing well if we can keep deaths below 20,000" at one of the earlier daily briefings. That wouldn't seem to tie up while suspiciously being the same number.

[nirvana]

Just linking this because it’s mildly interesting that Jeremy Hunt likes it:

https://twitter.com/mojitobab/status/1250458634980659201?s=21

#FBPE  - this is where I don the tinfoil hat - raving lunatics all

[kukushkin88]

Just linking this because it’s mildly interesting that Jeremy Hunt likes it:

https://twitter.com/mojitobab/status/1250458634980659201?s=21

#FBPE  - this is where I don the tinfoil hat - raving lunatics all

What is #FBPE?