COVID19

[kukushkin88]

.. there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yes to the respirator bit - and yes to the NHS 'could' be better equipped (although that obviously has the proviso that if the NHS had been kept at full post-Blair operational capacity - what would have been sacrificed to pay for it?)

But - closing the schools was always part of the plan.

Things move fast in an epidemic - what isn't appropriate to do one day. might be the appropriate thing to do a couple of days later.

In terms of party politics - the government seem to be pretty much following expert advice; you can get your expert advice elsewhere - but their action all along have seemed to pretty closely tie in with the modelling that's been shown (and the implication of what the modelling was before they refined it).

I'm not defending the politics - I'm defending the science and maths.


If you wanted to add politics to it. The modelling specifically states that it is not looking at any moral implications - that's for the public policy makers to introduce after they interpret the advice. It could be argued that the government are being guided too much by the science and maybe should apply a bit more humanity to it.

The last paragraph certainly makes a good point. I’m also keen not to try and appear wise after the event, it’s just as much of a dick move here as in gambling. On Thursday last week Vallance said we were “4 weeks” behind Italy, yesterday 3. I think my point remains valid to ask what Italy would do if could wind back the clock, we have that opportunity and we still aren’t taking it, we have far fewer respirators per capita than Italy.

In terms of the science and the maths, this document has it covered better than most I think:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

That's the research paper I've been talking about - it should be on the page I linked to but didn't quite work.

But didn't Italy put lockdown measures in place after 20 cases were confirmed?

What more do you think they could have done?

EDIT: having re-read it from your link, what they exactly state is, "We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made", I might have assumed they meant - it's up to the politicians to decide that.

Italy locked down on March 12th, there were 15,113 cases confirmed and 1016 dead at that time.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

[Jon MW]

.. there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yes to the respirator bit - and yes to the NHS 'could' be better equipped (although that obviously has the proviso that if the NHS had been kept at full post-Blair operational capacity - what would have been sacrificed to pay for it?)

But - closing the schools was always part of the plan.

Things move fast in an epidemic - what isn't appropriate to do one day. might be the appropriate thing to do a couple of days later.

In terms of party politics - the government seem to be pretty much following expert advice; you can get your expert advice elsewhere - but their action all along have seemed to pretty closely tie in with the modelling that's been shown (and the implication of what the modelling was before they refined it).

I'm not defending the politics - I'm defending the science and maths.


If you wanted to add politics to it. The modelling specifically states that it is not looking at any moral implications - that's for the public policy makers to introduce after they interpret the advice. It could be argued that the government are being guided too much by the science and maybe should apply a bit more humanity to it.

The last paragraph certainly makes a good point. I’m also keen not to try and appear wise after the event, it’s just as much of a dick move here as in gambling. On Thursday last week Vallance said we were “4 weeks” behind Italy, yesterday 3. I think my point remains valid to ask what Italy would do if could wind back the clock, we have that opportunity and we still aren’t taking it, we have far fewer respirators per capita than Italy.

In terms of the science and the maths, this document has it covered better than most I think:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

That's the research paper I've been talking about - it should be on the page I linked to but didn't quite work.

But didn't Italy put lockdown measures in place after 20 cases were confirmed?

What more do you think they could have done?

EDIT: having re-read it from your link, what they exactly state is, "We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made", I might have assumed they meant - it's up to the politicians to decide that.

Italy locked down on March 12th, there were 15,113 cases confirmed and 1016 dead at that time.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

"On 22 February, the government announced a new decree imposing the quarantine of more than 50,000 people from 11 different municipalities in Northern Italy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Italy

It should be remembered that the Italy outbreak was much more regionally confined than the UK one.

Yes - they could have gone straight to a national lockdown - but there are consquences to every decision like that.

Given the regional lockdown (where the cases mainly were) didn't work, it's not entirely clear whether going straight to the national lockdown would make a difference.

[Chompy]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1239584711346769920

[kukushkin88]

.. there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yes to the respirator bit - and yes to the NHS 'could' be better equipped (although that obviously has the proviso that if the NHS had been kept at full post-Blair operational capacity - what would have been sacrificed to pay for it?)

But - closing the schools was always part of the plan.

Things move fast in an epidemic - what isn't appropriate to do one day. might be the appropriate thing to do a couple of days later.

In terms of party politics - the government seem to be pretty much following expert advice; you can get your expert advice elsewhere - but their action all along have seemed to pretty closely tie in with the modelling that's been shown (and the implication of what the modelling was before they refined it).

I'm not defending the politics - I'm defending the science and maths.


If you wanted to add politics to it. The modelling specifically states that it is not looking at any moral implications - that's for the public policy makers to introduce after they interpret the advice. It could be argued that the government are being guided too much by the science and maybe should apply a bit more humanity to it.

The last paragraph certainly makes a good point. I’m also keen not to try and appear wise after the event, it’s just as much of a dick move here as in gambling. On Thursday last week Vallance said we were “4 weeks” behind Italy, yesterday 3. I think my point remains valid to ask what Italy would do if could wind back the clock, we have that opportunity and we still aren’t taking it, we have far fewer respirators per capita than Italy.

In terms of the science and the maths, this document has it covered better than most I think:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

That's the research paper I've been talking about - it should be on the page I linked to but didn't quite work.

But didn't Italy put lockdown measures in place after 20 cases were confirmed?

What more do you think they could have done?

EDIT: having re-read it from your link, what they exactly state is, "We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made", I might have assumed they meant - it's up to the politicians to decide that.

Italy locked down on March 12th, there were 15,113 cases confirmed and 1016 dead at that time.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

"On 22 February, the government announced a new decree imposing the quarantine of more than 50,000 people from 11 different municipalities in Northern Italy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Italy

It should be remembered that the Italy outbreak was much more regionally confined than the UK one.

Yes - they could have gone straight to a national lockdown - but there are consquences to every decision like that.

Given the regional lockdown (where the cases mainly were) didn't work, it's not entirely clear whether going straight to the national lockdown would make a difference.

They initially locked down 50,000 in a population of about 60.5million. That’s ~0.08% of the population. We should have learnt quickly from that.

[StuartHopkin]

Businesses who are insured against being unable to trade still can't claim even if forced to close by the Government unless they have specific cover against pandemic say insurers.

I spoke to our brokers today, and he stated they arrange business interruption insurance for a lot of bars and restaurants with Aviva (not our insurer) and Aviva have a clause that clearly excludes Government or Police forcing closures to suppress infectious diseases so they wont be paying a penny to anyone.

My response was 'wow'

[roshambo]

Ive had this off a few providers today whilst on a call out, luckily i mainly deal in investments and we are finding people have lost in area of 16% of their investment since start of situation, but in reality the boat has sailed and people need to weather the storm

[RED-DOG]

It's just so surreal. I can't drag myself away from the telly.

I can't imaging what the world will be like when it's over.

[Skippy]

Talking of spreadsheets, here is one I "like" with case numbers for the UK and graphs:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eTKeK9vRxgw0KhvKxPCaDrfaHnxQP-n9TsLzsEymviY

[kukushkin88]

Talking of spreadsheets, here is one I "like" with case numbers for the UK and graphs:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eTKeK9vRxgw0KhvKxPCaDrfaHnxQP-n9TsLzsEymviY

This guy has been a bit of a legend on the stats front on the DHSC twitter feed.

[Skippy]

Talking of spreadsheets, here is one I "like" with case numbers for the UK and graphs:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eTKeK9vRxgw0KhvKxPCaDrfaHnxQP-n9TsLzsEymviY

This guy has been a bit of a legend on the stats front on the DHSC twitter feed.

He has some views, that's for certain. I like his facts.

[Marky147]

Company I work for now doing all broker appts via FT/Phone for the forseeable.

[Woodsey]

Who’s gonna be first to have a moan up after all that support offered by the government? Come on don’t let me down!

[nirvana]

.. there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yes to the respirator bit - and yes to the NHS 'could' be better equipped (although that obviously has the proviso that if the NHS had been kept at full post-Blair operational capacity - what would have been sacrificed to pay for it?)

But - closing the schools was always part of the plan.

Things move fast in an epidemic - what isn't appropriate to do one day. might be the appropriate thing to do a couple of days later.

In terms of party politics - the government seem to be pretty much following expert advice; you can get your expert advice elsewhere - but their action all along have seemed to pretty closely tie in with the modelling that's been shown (and the implication of what the modelling was before they refined it).

I'm not defending the politics - I'm defending the science and maths.


If you wanted to add politics to it. The modelling specifically states that it is not looking at any moral implications - that's for the public policy makers to introduce after they interpret the advice. It could be argued that the government are being guided too much by the science and maybe should apply a bit more humanity to it.

The last paragraph certainly makes a good point. I’m also keen not to try and appear wise after the event, it’s just as much of a dick move here as in gambling. On Thursday last week Vallance said we were “4 weeks” behind Italy, yesterday 3. I think my point remains valid to ask what Italy would do if could wind back the clock, we have that opportunity and we still aren’t taking it, we have far fewer respirators per capita than Italy.

In terms of the science and the maths, this document has it covered better than most I think:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

What was labour's pledge on respirator numbers before this happened.

Given Jezza's view on his own social distancing, I think it is optimistic to suggest a labour government would have acted quicker. 

They would likely have had a few more nurses, but it is hard to see how any significant changes would happen in 3 months.  If they'd got in the time before, it is reasonable to assume there would be more doctors and nurses.  Though keeping the critically sick numbers below intensive care beds would be pretty much as hard as it is now.

Agree that if winning in 2015 or 2017 there would be more doctors and nurses. This would be good per se but unlikely to help massively in the critical care situation we'll face soon where respirators most likely to be the limiting factor rather than absolute numbers of nurses. Pretty unlikely that Labour would have examined the NHS in such a granular way a couple of years ago and determined a massive uplift in per capita respirators would be a key priority - maybe they would have moved in a more draconian fashion but given they were agreeing with Govt conclusions until about 5/6 days ago, that's pretty unlikely.

Even if Government has acted later than may later prove to have been optimal I can forgive that rather than climb all over them because this is so different to anything a Govt has faced in a number of generations and worse they have to do it in the post Diana era where people spout specious shiz like 'one life lost is one too many' and people love to blame someone, anyone, for every bad thing that happens.

To me it's pretty basic, loads of people will die, not one of the deaths will be the 'fault' of Government per se and to blame them is ridiculous, petty and pointless - not to say different voices shouldn't express explicitly counter perspectives as that could steer things in a better direction but when people (just normal people) are facing a once in a lifetime scenario and, as said before, make less than optimal decisions this is just a learning curve and I couldn't really give a monkeys if a few more people died because of that - it's still not their 'fault'.

[dakky]

Who’s gonna be first to have a moan up after all that support offered by the government? Come on don’t let me down!

No support for freelancers/self-employed/gig-economy types, renters etc. Guess some can get JSA/universal credit & housing benefit but others might not be able to.

[Karabiner]

Who’s gonna be first to have a moan up after all that support offered by the government? Come on don’t let me down!

"Momentum" moaned on Twitter almost immediately.