Corona Virus

[Alf Bentley]

16 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

 [Long post on p. 392 - deleted for space]

 

 

Thanks for those links. The FT one was behind a paywall but the others were informative - generally credible opinion supported by facts, dates etc. I'd already read about the part played by Chinese concealment, but less so about the WHO's involvement - though I certainly never claimed that the WHO was blameless, and assumed it was not. 

 

I don't see the need for the tone of mildly abusive petulance and B-movie swagger that you adopt in your reply - but appreciate the effort you made to reply in detail to my points, offering well-supported arguments and good links. Thanks. 

 

On substantive issues raised....

 

- You make a well-supported case for the WHO deserving some blame for repeating and not challenging misleading Chinese information. But it's worth noting that their experts apparently weren't even allowed access to China until late January. Clearly, that doesn't preclude them challenging data or adding caveats about credibility when it passed such information on. But it does speak to a central problem with your call for the WHO to be binned and replaced: China is a major global power and one disinclined to be open with sensitive information. That was an obstacle to the WHO and would presumably be an obstacle to any replacement - unless the rest of the world, or at least other major powers, unite to insist on greater openness...tricky.

 

- Your own links show early information was available contesting Chinese misinformation passed to the WHO. Taiwan reportedly informed the WHO of likely human-to-human transmission in Wuhan by late December. I know the UK doesn't officially recognise Taiwan, but surely this information was also available to the UK & other countries via well-established unofficial channels? Likewise, your Lancet article was published 24th January and reveals multiple Chinese cases with no connection to the wet market.....a week before the first confirmed UK case, about 7 weeks before Cheltenham & almost 2 months before the lockdown. You also do not answer my question about information from UK sources in China. I appreciate that information would be hard to obtain in China, but we do have an embassy with staff presumably trained to get info as part of their job - plus intelligence sources. I take your point that WHO inadequacies probably hindered our response in the West, but were we really 100% reliant on the WHO, as you seem to suggest? If so, that would be an institutional problem in itself.

 

- That is the disparity that I wanted to highlight in your posts. You (correctly) criticise China for its concealment. You criticise the WHO for its failings and delays - and make a good case for this. But then you don't want to prematurely criticise delays or failings by Western governments, even after it had become clear from other sources that human-to-human transmission was happening or when, on 30th Jan, the WHO belatedly declared it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

 

- After a quick search, it looks as if I was wrong to link your reluctance to criticise governments to their reliance on false information from China, so I apologise for that. I know such arguments were made on here and thought that I remembered you making them, but it must have been other posters. Presumably there are other reasons for the disparity between your severe, early judgment of the failings of China and the WHO and your withholding most criticism of national governments. I take your point that the different parties (China, WHO, different national govts) played different roles at different stages. I also think that it makes sense to wait for a proper investigation after this is all hopefully over, before looking at which institutions failed at what - and adapting institutions so as to learn from those failings and do better in future. But doesn't that apply to all those parties? For all of them, there are apparent failings, factors beyond their control that contributed to those failings - and probably other issues that we're not even aware of yet. You just seem to instinctively want to lambast China (an unpleasant regime, clearly) and the WHO as a global institution ASAP, but to withhold most criticism of national govts, particularly the UK Govt.

 

- I completely agree that govts shouldn't just be judged on deaths/population, when their actions or inaction will only be one factor in that outcome. Just for starters: the virus arrived in some countries earlier than others; some receive more/less international visitors; some have older populations; some have heavily urbanised/concentrated populations (I wonder if greater space is part of the reason why Australia hasn't been harder hit?); some populations are more compliant than others; some govts have greater power than others; some have more resources..... I also share your hope that institutions will be rethought or improved after all this - both internationally and nationally (e.g. health-social care relationship).

 

- I hope that you're not accusing me of being one of those who only "criticise the man and the party"? It's no secret that I'm mostly anti-Tory and anti-Johnson. But I posted in this thread a couple of weeks ago praising much-improved performances and greater seriousness shown by both Johnson and Hancock - after early communications/measures lacked clarity and seriousness. I have also not been very critical of the govt over this, though long-term under-funding and chaos over testing and PPE are issues. I support the lockdown and thought Sunak made a bold, decent fist of his initial effort at addressing the economic side of things, though problems may soon become more apparent & might require further major adjustments

 

Enough! I've got work to do......summarising a load of Spanish docs about coronavirus protection for transport workers in Bogota! 

[Foxin_Mad]

1 hour ago, Charl91 said:

This, and also the fact that Western Nations are more likely to represent their figures accurately. I imagine that China's actual statistics would lower that 85% by quite a margin.

 

Though I also read a report (not sure how true it is) the other day that Chile are counting people who've died from the virus as "recovered", because they no longer have symptoms of the virus  

Think I read that report too. I wouldn't put it past some of these nations to do things like that. All governments obviously want to look good, but some are somewhat massaging the figures!

 

Anyone think Hancock has gone a bit crazy!?

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, murphy said:

 

I don't know what's worse, people wilfully misunderstanding the herd immunity issue to suit their own agendas or people being so thick that they still don't get it.

 

The plan all along was to broaden and flatten the curve so as not to overwhelm the NHS.  Vallance, the source of the original quote, was on TV on Monday (Coronavirus Q&A) and was asked this question directly. 

 

He said  "Let Me be crystal clear, herd immunity never was the government's strategy..."

 

Herd immunity is a possible end game.  A likely by product of infection because the transmission cannot be stopped entirely only slowed down or reduced.  The sad thing is that people heard Vallance's original quote and thought that he was advocating a policy of standing idly by and letting the population get infected, sacrificing lives to build up acquired immunity, despite the government hammering home their message to the contrary day after day after day after day after day....  

 

....Or rather they heard what they wanted to hear as this would fit nicely with some people's pathetic caricature image of the evil Tory.

 

We've been through this.  We know for certain that herd immunity was never a plan.  Why are you still trying to peddle this shit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

We did exactly this for weeks. 

 

With 20000 odd thousand expected to die, they're never going to admit they had to change the approach when they realised the original plan was going to kill hundreds of thousands. They have to control the narrative to say this was part of the plan all along, otherwise there would be uproar. 

 

For what it is worth, I voted tory until leaving the EU became a priority for the party. I'm not 'peddling this' as some anti tory campaigner, I'm criticising the approach we took compared to other countries, and the blind faith some people have in the approach - which to me seems to be based on allegiance. 

[Lionator]

18 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Think I read that report too. I wouldn't put it past some of these nations to do things like that. All governments obviously want to look good, but some are somewhat massaging the figures!

 

Anyone think Hancock has gone a bit crazy!?

He's going to be the sacrificial lamb for this government as he is weak. He's now realising it. 

[murphy]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

And I suppose that Boris was talking about flattening the curve when toying with the idea of “taking it on the chin”? Quite startling how history can be rewritten before our very eyes. I must be too thick to understand.

If you really want to pick this scab and go over old ground yet again, he was discussing different theories and what herd immunity is.  The quote is "One of theories is to take this on the chin..." ie herd immunity. 

 

I wonder why you left that bit out?  

 

It was never advocated and certainly not policy.  Why is a chat show interview where the prime minister is saying what herd immunity is, cited as government policy when the daily repeated public briefings where the message is hammered home time after time are completely ignored?

 

Vallance, the source of the whole herd immunity non-story, put the final nail in the coffin of this idea by saying unequivocally that it was never policy this week and spelling out exactly what he meant.   I don't think you're thick so w hat else can we conclude if people refuse to accept it, other than they are believing what they want to believe to reinforce their own prejudices?

 

 

Edited 16 April 2020 by murphy

[Lionator]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/16/uk-needs-lockdown-exit-strategy-says-key-coronavirus-adviser?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1WuogGHrgwZCBjbJnH0jvnmuK6kxtEOuPDAPCNeHdJ9Ou0tHSkcGu_lwc#Echobox=1587026859

 

Neil Ferguson, who has been a key player in all of this, is quickly losing patience with the government (sorry to make that bit political).

 

France, Germany, Spain and Italy, who are our contemporaries, have all made their exits from lockdown clear to their populations, we haven't, it's a mess.

 

[murphy]

Just now, Lionator said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/16/uk-needs-lockdown-exit-strategy-says-key-coronavirus-adviser?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1WuogGHrgwZCBjbJnH0jvnmuK6kxtEOuPDAPCNeHdJ9Ou0tHSkcGu_lwc#Echobox=1587026859

 

Neil Ferguson, who has been a key player in all of this, is quickly losing patience with the government (sorry to make that bit political).

 

France, Germany, Spain and Italy, who are our contemporaries, have all made their exits from lockdown clear to their populations, we haven't, it's a mess.

 

They are all ahead of us on their timelines.  It would be foolish for the government to spell out exit strategies or to even mention it when we don't know what the near future will hold.  We need to keep the focus on observing lockdown not exiting it.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Lionator said:

He's going to be the sacrificial lamb for this government as he is weak. He's now realising it. 

No need for a sacrificial lamb anyway?

 

Polling suggests majority of people think the Government have handled the crisis fairly well, polling suggests the government are the most popular government we've had for decades.

 

The only people raging at Boris and the government are the people who have always been raging at Boris and the government - and *spoiler alert* they'll continue to rage at Boris and the government whatever happens.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[WigstonWanderer]

22 minutes ago, murphy said:

If you really want to pick this scab and go over old ground yet again, he was discussing different theories and what herd immunity is.  The quote is "One of theories is to take this on the chin..." ie herd immunity. 

 

I wonder why you left that bit out?  

 

It was never advocated and certainly not policy.  Why is a chat show interview where the prime minister is saying what herd immunity is, cited as government policy when the daily repeated public briefings where the message is hammered home time after time are completely ignored?

 

Vallance, the source of the whole herd immunity non-story, put the final nail in the coffin of this idea by saying unequivocally that it was never policy this week and spelling out exactly what he meant.  What else can we conclude if people refuse to accept it, other than they are believing what they want to believe to reinforce their own prejudices?

 

 

Jesus! The mental gymnastics of the Tory fanboys on here never ceases to amaze me. I’m not even really having a go at the government. Many governments around the world dithered in February and even March, and it is to the UK government’s credit that they changed their minds. But to suggest that the herd immunity approach was never seriously considered and that anyone suggesting so it thick, is simply laughable,

 

During the first press conference with Vallance, Whitty and Johnson, Vallance gave the clear impression that this was current government policy.

 

Here is Vallance saying the same thing again, quite unequivocal.

 

Even on here we had people posting a video of the guy giving an analogy of a bucket full of water (the population), and the jug with a hole in it (the health service capacity). The analogy was that the whole population had to catch the disease without overflowing the jug. Probably the same people posting it that are the ones now denying it was ever a consideration.

 

It was only later when Imperial College produced charts in which it was quite clear that the NHS capacity was totally inadequate for such a policy, and that 250k or more would die, that the government took a different tack. Yes, they did say that other actions would be taken later to mitigate, but suppression was NOT their original policy.

Edited 16 April 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

It seems the Chinese are blaming black people for the spread.

 

Read a article in Sky about black people not allowed in bars and restaurants in China, makes me cringe big time.

If you’d spent any time there you’d know it’s an awfully racist country - much more against black people than Indian sub continent. It seems to be endemic within their psyche 

 

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I actually think the fears of nationalistic isolation are what is leading some people to be so generous to the Chinese authorities.

 

I don't deny many of the things claimed are true but the "lockdown" still didn't happen until a few months after the first cases in Wuhan and this is a well connected place with thousands travelling to and from it into places like Beijing every day between December and February.

 

So a figure of just over 100 deaths combined in those cities that are more densely and higher populated than most European countries? Come on. We all know this is miles from the truth.

Are we experts on how a novel virus takes hold amongst the population and spreads?

 

I assume it doesn’t act at the beginning in the same way as it does once established 

 

so if there were some cases in late November that were becoming noted within the local health authority in December, to assume that it was spreading then the way it did January onwards Is correct??

 

also, if it began within a low paid/low skilled community in Wuhan then it’s reasonable to assume that it wouldn’t necessarily be spread outside that area for some time. There is not much travel undertaken by those communities around the country apart from at Chinese New Year when many workers tend to return to their home towns (not this year though)

 

 

Edited 16 April 2020 by st albans fox

[murphy]

31 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Jesus! The mental gymnastics of the Tory fanboys on here never ceases to amaze me. I’m not even really having a go at the government. Many governments around the world dithered in February and even March, and it is to the UK government’s credit that they changed their minds. But to suggest that the herd immunity approach was never seriously considered and that anyone suggesting so it thick, is simply laughable,

 

During the first press conference with Vallance, Whitty and Johnson, Vallance gave the clear impression that this was current government policy.

 

Here is Vallance saying the same thing again, quite unequivocal.

 

Even on here we had people posting a video of the guy giving an analogy of a bucket full of water (the population), and the jug with a hole in it (the health service capacity). The analogy was that the whole population had to catch the disease without overflowing the jug. Probably the same people posting that are the ones now now denying it was ever a consideration.

 

It was only later when Imperial College produced charts in which it was quite clear that the NHS capacity was totally inadequate for such a policy, and that 250k or more would die, that the government took a different tack. Yes, they did say that other actions would be taken later to mitigate, but suppression was NOT their original policy.

 

 

He literally says that it is about broadening the peak and pushing it further into the future.  That is not a  herd immunity strategy.  He goes on to say that we may have to do more later.  All of this is in keeping with original policy, not herd immunity.  At that point(3:26) I gave up cus , you know, life's too short, but I may come back to it but we are drawing very different conclusion from this.

Edited 16 April 2020 by murphy

[WigstonWanderer]

10 minutes ago, murphy said:

 

 

He literllay says that it is about broadening the peak and pushing it further into the future.  That is not aherd immunity strategy.  He goes on to say that we may have to do more later.  All of this is in keeping with original policy, not herd immunity.  At that point(3:26) I gave up cus , you know, life's too short, but I may come back to it but we are drawing very different conclusion from this.

Well if you can spare a minute, wind on to about 4mins and listen for 60 secs or so.

[Guest Fktf]

7 minutes ago, murphy said:

 

 

He literllay says that it is about broadening the peak and pushing it further into the future.  That is not aherd immunity strategy.  He goes on to say that we may have to do more later.  All of this is in keeping with original policy, not herd immunity.  At that point(3:26) I gave up cus , you know, life's too short, but I may come back to it but we are drawing very different conclusion from this.

Isn't it? Keeping the peak below NHS capacity sounds like a pretty successful way of letting the virus spread through the population whilst keeping deaths as low as possible (in this scenario) by maintaining the ability to treat people.

[Lionator]

40 minutes ago, murphy said:

They are all ahead of us on their timelines.  It would be foolish for the government to spell out exit strategies or to even mention it when we don't know what the near future will hold.  We need to keep the focus on observing lockdown not exiting it.

It's important to at least have a plan as the Chancellor keeps saying. It appears that there isn't one at the moment. 

[Dahnsouff]

 Do people not even realise what a unique and dynamic situation this is?

Did anybody even bother watching the Angela Merkel clip posted earlier? That excellent politician and lady summed it up perfectly, we can plan but all countries sit largely on a knife edge and we must be vigilant and disciplined. 
Plans can and will change.
If the government changes a plan it is seized upon as a failure rather than dynamism. People moan because people moan. 

 

[murphy]

11 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Well if you can spare a minute, wind on to about 4mins and listen for 60 secs or so.

I will come back to it, (everybody will be so pleased), but right now I'm being harassed to do stuff.

 

9 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Isn't it? Keeping the peak below NHS capacity sounds like a pretty successful way of letting the virus spread through the population whilst keeping deaths as low as possible (in this scenario) by maintaining the ability to treat people.

Yes, that is not the same as herd immunity.  You have to put measures in to reduce transmission to keep below capacity so that anyone who needs treatment can get it.  It is assumed that the virus cannot be stopped after we left the containment phase.

 

Herd immunity is a very different thing altogether of allowing the virus to simply play out.

[murphy]

6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

 Do people not even realise what a unique and dynamic situation this is?

Did anybody even bother watching the Angela Merkel clip posted earlier? That excellent politician and lady summed it up perfectly, we can plan but all countries sit largely on a knife edge and we must be vigilant and disciplined. 
Plans can and will change.
If the government changes a plan it is seized upon as a failure rather than dynamism. People moan because people moan. 

 

This is true, we need to be both pro active and re active but the idea that the government ever took an approach of allowing the virus to simply play out to acquire immunity is a slur that needs addressing. 

[Guest MattP]

Belgium now has the highest death rate per head of population in the World.

[twoleftfeet]

 

Just now, MattP said:

Belgium now has the highest death rate per head of population in the World.

SAN MARINO

[Guest MattP]

Just now, twoleftfeet said:

SAN MARINO

Haha I didn't go that far down!

[Strokes]

27 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Well if you can spare a minute, wind on to about 4mins and listen for 60 secs or so.

The term herd immunity is being abused here, people are making it out to be that herd immunity simply means taking no action and letting the virus rip through society.

Then they present evidence that mentions herd immunity and also mentions measures taken to protect vulnerable and flatten the curve.

The options without a vaccine are what exactly? Lockdown like China for four months every time the virus reappears? Test, trace, isolate and suppress until a vaccine? or flatten the peak for as long as possible hoping enough get the mild symptoms to lessen the effects upon each outbreak?

The latter is what is being dubbed herd immunity, that seems to be our plan. I’m happy with it to a point, the test trace isolate would also be a good option. My concern with this epidemic is when a vaccine is found they will rush through testing, because of the devastating economic effects of this epidemic and that might also come with devastating effects for mankind.

I still pick the strategy we appear to be attempting, not because of political loyalty because from my limited understanding and knowledge it appears to be the less risky choice.

Edited 16 April 2020 by Strokes

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Belgium now has the highest death rate per head of population in the World.

Remind me at what point they locked down again? I’m sure Belgium was almost instant wasn’t it?

[Finnaldo]

28 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Remind me at what point they locked down again? I’m sure Belgium was almost instant wasn’t it?

I had to look into it because I couldn’t believe how high it was.

 

Turns out, they’ve been extremely generous with their figures it seems:

 

‘Belgium is one of few countries in Europe that includes in its daily tally of coronavirus-related deaths all non-hospitalised people who displayed symptoms of the disease even if they had not been confirmed as having had it.

That may help to explain why Belgium, a small country of about 11.5 million people, now has the fifth highest coronavirus death toll in Europe, ahead of more populous nations like Germany and the Netherlands.’

 

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8222647/amp/Nursing-homes-account-HALF-coronavirus-deaths-Belgium-lockdown-extended-May.html

[Facecloth]

36 minutes ago, MattP said:

Belgium now has the highest death rate per head of population in the World.

Chile has the most recovered though.