COVID19

[kukushkin88]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-ready-to-tighten-lockdown-as-coronavirus-cases-climb-again-jgbsl5xp6

Interesting article on Germany.

No surprise......those rattling on with judgments need to wait a good 12 months with those judgements happen.....

Outside the payroll

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/germany-lockdown-eases-spread-coronavirus-worsens-200428075843362.html

Just for interest, what judgements do you think people need to wait 12 months on?  

The Government have clearly been making judgements for several months already.  Many things have been known about COVID19 for some time, and we now know more than the Government did when they started making these judgements.  

What? Of course Governments can't wait 12 months to make their judgements, they have to act as soon as possible and hope they get it right.

Pretty sure what Woodsey was referring to was holding off on the "what they should've done......" hindsight bullshit for 12 months.

This Germany stuff seemed pretty obvious to me for what my humble opinion is worth. You can't keep the thing out forever unless you completely close your country forever (or until a vaccine turns up). Every country that has seemingly done brilliantly has to let the f**king thing in at some point unless they plan on completely isolating themselves from the rest of the world for a couple of years.

This is a good explanation of how to deal with it. No need to close your country forever.

Ha, completely forgot the link:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-how-to-do-testing-and-contact-tracing-bde85b64072e

It's generally a good description but it has got an editorial bias.

It is working on the assumption that every country could control the virus if they did the right thing at the right time, and that would be down to primarily just doing enough tests.

For example it says,
"On one side, we have countries like the US, Spain, UK, or France that have an epidemic that is out of control. They weren’t prepared to handle the crisis, so they applied the Hammer, a series of very heavy measures to lock down the economy and prevent people from getting infected. This is how they stop the epidemic. For them, testing massive amounts of people is not necessary at this point, because they limit the spread with the Hammer. The only people they need to test are those who are sick or likely to get sick (eg, healthcare workers)"

This correctly says that testing a lot isn't necessary at the point where the epidemic is out of control (more accurately when the government monitored spread of the disease is less than the community 'unknown' spread of the disease) but the underlying implication is that it is just a matter of doing more earlier that lead to that point.

It also says, "For most developed countries, the worse their testing has been, the worse their epidemic."

I'd suggest that's the wrong way around, the worse a countries epidemic has been - the less their testing has been; for the exact reason the same article already mentioned - they didn't need it.

The idea that every country could have control like New Zealand, S Korea or Singapore 'technically' 'migt' be possible, but for example, someobody suggested that for the UK to test every entrant to the UK (like S Korea did) would mean 500,000 tests a day. Germany started the epidemic with 100,000 a day capacity and the US currently has about 200,000 test a day capacity so it's clear that (even if it worked, which it might not have done) actually being able to stop the virus  from becoming out of control is not in reality something that could have ever happened.

Summary: the gist is right, the editorial bias is ... misguided.


EDIT: it also uses some figures as definitive whereas they're actually (research driven) estimates, still goes with the gist being right but the answer is not as 'definite' as they suggest.

Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. When you talk about all the various biases, do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

[Jon MW]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-ready-to-tighten-lockdown-as-coronavirus-cases-climb-again-jgbsl5xp6

Interesting article on Germany.

No surprise......those rattling on with judgments need to wait a good 12 months with those judgements happen.....

Outside the payroll

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/germany-lockdown-eases-spread-coronavirus-worsens-200428075843362.html

Just for interest, what judgements do you think people need to wait 12 months on?  

The Government have clearly been making judgements for several months already.  Many things have been known about COVID19 for some time, and we now know more than the Government did when they started making these judgements.  

What? Of course Governments can't wait 12 months to make their judgements, they have to act as soon as possible and hope they get it right.

Pretty sure what Woodsey was referring to was holding off on the "what they should've done......" hindsight bullshit for 12 months.

This Germany stuff seemed pretty obvious to me for what my humble opinion is worth. You can't keep the thing out forever unless you completely close your country forever (or until a vaccine turns up). Every country that has seemingly done brilliantly has to let the f**king thing in at some point unless they plan on completely isolating themselves from the rest of the world for a couple of years.

This is a good explanation of how to deal with it. No need to close your country forever.

Ha, completely forgot the link:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-how-to-do-testing-and-contact-tracing-bde85b64072e

It's generally a good description but it has got an editorial bias.

It is working on the assumption that every country could control the virus if they did the right thing at the right time, and that would be down to primarily just doing enough tests.

For example it says,
"On one side, we have countries like the US, Spain, UK, or France that have an epidemic that is out of control. They weren’t prepared to handle the crisis, so they applied the Hammer, a series of very heavy measures to lock down the economy and prevent people from getting infected. This is how they stop the epidemic. For them, testing massive amounts of people is not necessary at this point, because they limit the spread with the Hammer. The only people they need to test are those who are sick or likely to get sick (eg, healthcare workers)"

This correctly says that testing a lot isn't necessary at the point where the epidemic is out of control (more accurately when the government monitored spread of the disease is less than the community 'unknown' spread of the disease) but the underlying implication is that it is just a matter of doing more earlier that lead to that point.

It also says, "For most developed countries, the worse their testing has been, the worse their epidemic."

I'd suggest that's the wrong way around, the worse a countries epidemic has been - the less their testing has been; for the exact reason the same article already mentioned - they didn't need it.

The idea that every country could have control like New Zealand, S Korea or Singapore 'technically' 'migt' be possible, but for example, someobody suggested that for the UK to test every entrant to the UK (like S Korea did) would mean 500,000 tests a day. Germany started the epidemic with 100,000 a day capacity and the US currently has about 200,000 test a day capacity so it's clear that (even if it worked, which it might not have done) actually being able to stop the virus  from becoming out of control is not in reality something that could have ever happened.

Summary: the gist is right, the editorial bias is ... misguided.


EDIT: it also uses some figures as definitive whereas they're actually (research driven) estimates, still goes with the gist being right but the answer is not as 'definite' as they suggest.

Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. When you talk about all the various biases, do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

I have a bias in that I assume most people will do what they think is best.

Most politicians are trying to make things better and they just have different ways they think this can be done.

And, importantly, the people who are working from a more self interested or prejudiced point of view, are usually doing it quite obviously and there probably isn't any much hidden, ulterior motives going on.

[Pokerpops]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-ready-to-tighten-lockdown-as-coronavirus-cases-climb-again-jgbsl5xp6

Interesting article on Germany.

No surprise......those rattling on with judgments need to wait a good 12 months with those judgements happen.....

Outside the payroll

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/germany-lockdown-eases-spread-coronavirus-worsens-200428075843362.html

Just for interest, what judgements do you think people need to wait 12 months on?  

The Government have clearly been making judgements for several months already.  Many things have been known about COVID19 for some time, and we now know more than the Government did when they started making these judgements.  

What? Of course Governments can't wait 12 months to make their judgements, they have to act as soon as possible and hope they get it right.

Pretty sure what Woodsey was referring to was holding off on the "what they should've done......" hindsight bullshit for 12 months.

This Germany stuff seemed pretty obvious to me for what my humble opinion is worth. You can't keep the thing out forever unless you completely close your country forever (or until a vaccine turns up). Every country that has seemingly done brilliantly has to let the f**king thing in at some point unless they plan on completely isolating themselves from the rest of the world for a couple of years.

This is a good explanation of how to deal with it. No need to close your country forever.

Ha, completely forgot the link:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-how-to-do-testing-and-contact-tracing-bde85b64072e

It's generally a good description but it has got an editorial bias.

It is working on the assumption that every country could control the virus if they did the right thing at the right time, and that would be down to primarily just doing enough tests.

For example it says,
"On one side, we have countries like the US, Spain, UK, or France that have an epidemic that is out of control. They weren’t prepared to handle the crisis, so they applied the Hammer, a series of very heavy measures to lock down the economy and prevent people from getting infected. This is how they stop the epidemic. For them, testing massive amounts of people is not necessary at this point, because they limit the spread with the Hammer. The only people they need to test are those who are sick or likely to get sick (eg, healthcare workers)"

This correctly says that testing a lot isn't necessary at the point where the epidemic is out of control (more accurately when the government monitored spread of the disease is less than the community 'unknown' spread of the disease) but the underlying implication is that it is just a matter of doing more earlier that lead to that point.

It also says, "For most developed countries, the worse their testing has been, the worse their epidemic."

I'd suggest that's the wrong way around, the worse a countries epidemic has been - the less their testing has been; for the exact reason the same article already mentioned - they didn't need it.

The idea that every country could have control like New Zealand, S Korea or Singapore 'technically' 'migt' be possible, but for example, someobody suggested that for the UK to test every entrant to the UK (like S Korea did) would mean 500,000 tests a day. Germany started the epidemic with 100,000 a day capacity and the US currently has about 200,000 test a day capacity so it's clear that (even if it worked, which it might not have done) actually being able to stop the virus  from becoming out of control is not in reality something that could have ever happened.

Summary: the gist is right, the editorial bias is ... misguided.


EDIT: it also uses some figures as definitive whereas they're actually (research driven) estimates, still goes with the gist being right but the answer is not as 'definite' as they suggest.

Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. When you talk about all the various biases, do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

I have a bias in that I assume most people will do what they think is best.

Most politicians are trying to make things better and they just have different ways they think this can be done.

And, importantly, the people who are working from a more self interested or prejudiced point of view, are usually doing it quite obviously and there probably isn't any much hidden, ulterior motives going on.

Kush, Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. Do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

[EvilPie]

Testing everyone would be fantastic but how practical could it ever be?

There are apparently an average of just over 100000 people arrive at Heathrow alone every single day. Do we test all of those in case they've picked something up whilst away?

Do we just test the ones who've been somewhere that's quite bad?

Do we test a random sample of people from somewhere quite bad?

If we have an average of 50 people testing at Heathrow and it takes 10 minutes to pluck someone from the crowd and get them tested you could get through 7000 in a day. That would be incredible and probably save us all but at what cost? Doubtless a lot less than totally closing the country but how could it ever be done?

Testing on a huge scale just can't possibly work unless there's a re-usable self applied test that can be distributed to everyone.

In theory it's the perfect solution but it just can't happen.

[kukushkin88]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-ready-to-tighten-lockdown-as-coronavirus-cases-climb-again-jgbsl5xp6

Interesting article on Germany.

No surprise......those rattling on with judgments need to wait a good 12 months with those judgements happen.....

Outside the payroll

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/germany-lockdown-eases-spread-coronavirus-worsens-200428075843362.html

Just for interest, what judgements do you think people need to wait 12 months on?  

The Government have clearly been making judgements for several months already.  Many things have been known about COVID19 for some time, and we now know more than the Government did when they started making these judgements.  

What? Of course Governments can't wait 12 months to make their judgements, they have to act as soon as possible and hope they get it right.

Pretty sure what Woodsey was referring to was holding off on the "what they should've done......" hindsight bullshit for 12 months.

This Germany stuff seemed pretty obvious to me for what my humble opinion is worth. You can't keep the thing out forever unless you completely close your country forever (or until a vaccine turns up). Every country that has seemingly done brilliantly has to let the f**king thing in at some point unless they plan on completely isolating themselves from the rest of the world for a couple of years.

This is a good explanation of how to deal with it. No need to close your country forever.

Ha, completely forgot the link:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-how-to-do-testing-and-contact-tracing-bde85b64072e

It's generally a good description but it has got an editorial bias.

It is working on the assumption that every country could control the virus if they did the right thing at the right time, and that would be down to primarily just doing enough tests.

For example it says,
"On one side, we have countries like the US, Spain, UK, or France that have an epidemic that is out of control. They weren’t prepared to handle the crisis, so they applied the Hammer, a series of very heavy measures to lock down the economy and prevent people from getting infected. This is how they stop the epidemic. For them, testing massive amounts of people is not necessary at this point, because they limit the spread with the Hammer. The only people they need to test are those who are sick or likely to get sick (eg, healthcare workers)"

This correctly says that testing a lot isn't necessary at the point where the epidemic is out of control (more accurately when the government monitored spread of the disease is less than the community 'unknown' spread of the disease) but the underlying implication is that it is just a matter of doing more earlier that lead to that point.

It also says, "For most developed countries, the worse their testing has been, the worse their epidemic."

I'd suggest that's the wrong way around, the worse a countries epidemic has been - the less their testing has been; for the exact reason the same article already mentioned - they didn't need it.

The idea that every country could have control like New Zealand, S Korea or Singapore 'technically' 'migt' be possible, but for example, someobody suggested that for the UK to test every entrant to the UK (like S Korea did) would mean 500,000 tests a day. Germany started the epidemic with 100,000 a day capacity and the US currently has about 200,000 test a day capacity so it's clear that (even if it worked, which it might not have done) actually being able to stop the virus  from becoming out of control is not in reality something that could have ever happened.

Summary: the gist is right, the editorial bias is ... misguided.


EDIT: it also uses some figures as definitive whereas they're actually (research driven) estimates, still goes with the gist being right but the answer is not as 'definite' as they suggest.

Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. When you talk about all the various biases, do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

I have a bias in that I assume most people will do what they think is best.

Most politicians are trying to make things better and they just have different ways they think this can be done.

And, importantly, the people who are working from a more self interested or prejudiced point of view, are usually doing it quite obviously and there probably isn't any much hidden, ulterior motives going on.

Kush, Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. Do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

I think I’ve answered this question a ton of times. I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government. I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany.

In spite of this bias, probably in part due to a strong background in scientific fields, I am able to be quite objective when I need to be. Reread the thread if we want to get a feel for who was ahead of the curve at any time in terms of how this was likely to play out.

[Jon MW]

Testing everyone would be fantastic but how practical could it ever be?

There are apparently an average of just over 100000 people arrive at Heathrow alone every single day. Do we test all of those in case they've picked something up whilst away?

Do we just test the ones who've been somewhere that's quite bad?

Do we test a random sample of people from somewhere quite bad?

If we have an average of 50 people testing at Heathrow and it takes 10 minutes to pluck someone from the crowd and get them tested you could get through 7000 in a day. That would be incredible and probably save us all but at what cost? Doubtless a lot less than totally closing the country but how could it ever be done?

Testing on a huge scale just can't possibly work unless there's a re-usable self applied test that can be distributed to everyone.

In theory it's the perfect solution but it just can't happen.

You also miss out the part about - what do you do with the people you test?

Temperature screening is suggested as a practical alternative because it's easier to do the quantity of people (although still not necessarily actually possible to do).

But even if you ignore that it will still miss people with the virus this way - a lot of people might have a high temperature. Do you send them home and tell them to self isolate for 14 days? How would that be any different from the lockdown restrictions that they are meant to be abiding by anyway? i.e. the testing is pointless if they're just told to do what they're told to do anyway if they're not tested.

Or do you put them in a detention camp - as stated, we get a lot of travellers, that's a pretty massive detention camp.

If you just do the actual tests this lessens the burden a bit but you're still basically left with the same problem.


And people do study epidemics. The conclusion they've reached is that it is only worth monitoring every entry to the country if there is a significant difference between the spread outside your country and the spread inside. That's whyfrom January every single flight from Wuhan was met with a medical team and they tested everyone symptomatic, and tracked and traced the people they were in contact with. But they stopped this once the virus spread outside of their monitoring was higher than that inside it.

If we have the capacity to track and trace all the domestic patients, then we might suppress the epidemic level low enough that it is worth trying to control new entry into the country - but that would seem to be a pretty end game move. And if the epidemic is ultimately only controlled by a vaccine it might never be the appropriate action.

[kukushkin88]

Testing everyone would be fantastic but how practical could it ever be?

There are apparently an average of just over 100000 people arrive at Heathrow alone every single day. Do we test all of those in case they've picked something up whilst away?

Do we just test the ones who've been somewhere that's quite bad?

Do we test a random sample of people from somewhere quite bad?

If we have an average of 50 people testing at Heathrow and it takes 10 minutes to pluck someone from the crowd and get them tested you could get through 7000 in a day. That would be incredible and probably save us all but at what cost? Doubtless a lot less than totally closing the country but how could it ever be done?

Testing on a huge scale just can't possibly work unless there's a re-usable self applied test that can be distributed to everyone.

In theory it's the perfect solution but it just can't happen.

You would have to restrict international travel for a period (length unknown atm). You would have to accept that the problem wasn’t resolved anywhere until it was resolved everywhere. You would need a strict lockdown until new daily infections were <300. You would need a testing capacity of about 250,000 a day and about 20,000 people working in tracing teams. The government is planning something close to this but it’s glacial progress atm. Any country with low levels of public investment and small manufacturing capacity is starting at a huge disadvantage on this.

[EvilPie]

Even if a vaccine becomes available how long would it take to vaccinate everyone?

Assume that 25% of the population have already had it so are immune that leaves about 45000000 to vaccinate.....

Can we do 250000 per day? I doubt it but let's be optimistic (don't worry about manufacturing them by the way, let's assume the tooth fairy is going to weigh in and help....)

6 months we're all fixed..... Hallelujah let's get started.....

[nirvana]

Germany hasn't, to my knowledge, yet published recent all cause data for the whole country

[EvilPie]

Testing everyone would be fantastic but how practical could it ever be?

There are apparently an average of just over 100000 people arrive at Heathrow alone every single day. Do we test all of those in case they've picked something up whilst away?

Do we just test the ones who've been somewhere that's quite bad?

Do we test a random sample of people from somewhere quite bad?

If we have an average of 50 people testing at Heathrow and it takes 10 minutes to pluck someone from the crowd and get them tested you could get through 7000 in a day. That would be incredible and probably save us all but at what cost? Doubtless a lot less than totally closing the country but how could it ever be done?

Testing on a huge scale just can't possibly work unless there's a re-usable self applied test that can be distributed to everyone.

In theory it's the perfect solution but it just can't happen.

You would have to restrict international travel for a period (length unknown atm). You would have to accept that the problem wasn’t resolved anywhere until it was resolved everywhere. You would need a strict lockdown until new daily infections were <300. You would need a testing capacity of about 250,000 a day and about 20,000 people working in tracing teams. The government is planning something close to this but it’s glacial progress atm. Any country with low levels of public investment and small manufacturing capacity is starting at a huge disadvantage on this.

If it's glacial then is it even practical to bother starting?

It doesn't seem 5 minutes ago we were all manufacturing ventilators and now nobody wants them. I wonder how much Dyson spent on R&D to be told now that they needn't have bothered as it's too late?

Who's going to invest in to something that might never happen?

[kukushkin88]

Even if a vaccine becomes available how long would it take to vaccinate everyone?

Assume that 25% of the population have already had it so are immune that leaves about 45000000 to vaccinate.....

Can we do 250000 per day? I doubt it but let's be optimistic (don't worry about manufacturing them by the way, let's assume the tooth fairy is going to weigh in and help....)

6 months we're all fixed..... Hallelujah let's get started.....

25% isn’t a realistic estimate for who’s had it in the U.K.* and having had it is not a guarantee of immunity, it remains an unknown atm. We’d need extensive international collaboration on upscaling vaccine/testing, France/US and Germany (amongst others) can make tests and vaccines much more quickly than we can.

* I’ll find the NYC serology surveys.

[EvilPie]

Even if a vaccine becomes available how long would it take to vaccinate everyone?

Assume that 25% of the population have already had it so are immune that leaves about 45000000 to vaccinate.....

Can we do 250000 per day? I doubt it but let's be optimistic (don't worry about manufacturing them by the way, let's assume the tooth fairy is going to weigh in and help....)

6 months we're all fixed..... Hallelujah let's get started.....

25% isn’t a realistic estimate for who’s had it in the U.K.* and having had it is not a guarantee of immunity, it remains an unknown atm. We’d need extensive international collaboration on upscaling vaccine/testing, France/US and Germany (amongst others) can make tests and vaccines much more quickly than we can.

* I’ll find the NYC serology surveys.

My figures weren't intended to be 100% accurate, there was an element of tongue in cheek implied in my post that you may have missed.

Can France/US and Germany amongst others produce/test fast enough to supply us as well as themselves and the rest of the world?

I think our best bet is the tooth fairy.

[kukushkin88]

Testing everyone would be fantastic but how practical could it ever be?

There are apparently an average of just over 100000 people arrive at Heathrow alone every single day. Do we test all of those in case they've picked something up whilst away?

Do we just test the ones who've been somewhere that's quite bad?

Do we test a random sample of people from somewhere quite bad?

If we have an average of 50 people testing at Heathrow and it takes 10 minutes to pluck someone from the crowd and get them tested you could get through 7000 in a day. That would be incredible and probably save us all but at what cost? Doubtless a lot less than totally closing the country but how could it ever be done?

Testing on a huge scale just can't possibly work unless there's a re-usable self applied test that can be distributed to everyone.

In theory it's the perfect solution but it just can't happen.

You would have to restrict international travel for a period (length unknown atm). You would have to accept that the problem wasn’t resolved anywhere until it was resolved everywhere. You would need a strict lockdown until new daily infections were <300. You would need a testing capacity of about 250,000 a day and about 20,000 people working in tracing teams. The government is planning something close to this but it’s glacial progress atm. Any country with low levels of public investment and small manufacturing capacity is starting at a huge disadvantage on this.

If it's glacial then is it even practical to bother starting?

It doesn't seem 5 minutes ago we were all manufacturing ventilators and now nobody wants them. I wonder how much Dyson spent on R&D to be told now that they needn't have bothered as it's too late?

Who's going to invest in to something that might never happen?

I wish there were better options. Let it run kills such a lot of people and probably leaves the rest of us without critical care for a very long and unknown period of time. There’s still so much we don’t know (a much longer discussion), so we need control while we learn.

[Jon MW]

...
Kush, Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. Do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

I think I’ve answered this question a ton of times. I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government. I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany.

In spite of this bias, probably in part due to a strong background in scientific fields, I am able to be quite objective when I need to be. Reread the thread if we want to get a feel for who was ahead of the curve at any time in terms of how this was likely to play out.

Kush - you know a bias is a prejudice right?

So if you're saying your bias is based on "I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government" you're saying that you don't think that's an objective opinion(?)

"I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany. "

Is closer - a more realistic description might be you're biased against anything you think doesn't lead to a more equitable society - primarily anything the Tories do          :p

[EvilPie]

Testing everyone would be fantastic but how practical could it ever be?

There are apparently an average of just over 100000 people arrive at Heathrow alone every single day. Do we test all of those in case they've picked something up whilst away?

Do we just test the ones who've been somewhere that's quite bad?

Do we test a random sample of people from somewhere quite bad?

If we have an average of 50 people testing at Heathrow and it takes 10 minutes to pluck someone from the crowd and get them tested you could get through 7000 in a day. That would be incredible and probably save us all but at what cost? Doubtless a lot less than totally closing the country but how could it ever be done?

Testing on a huge scale just can't possibly work unless there's a re-usable self applied test that can be distributed to everyone.

In theory it's the perfect solution but it just can't happen.

You would have to restrict international travel for a period (length unknown atm). You would have to accept that the problem wasn’t resolved anywhere until it was resolved everywhere. You would need a strict lockdown until new daily infections were <300. You would need a testing capacity of about 250,000 a day and about 20,000 people working in tracing teams. The government is planning something close to this but it’s glacial progress atm. Any country with low levels of public investment and small manufacturing capacity is starting at a huge disadvantage on this.

Say what??

Is that a typo? If it was anywhere near 300 nobody would give a shit would they?

Don't we just need the recovery rate to be greater than the infection rate assuming of course that the NHS is coping with the number of people currently in their care?