Coronavirus Thread

[Blackboots only]

23 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

How does New Zealand deal with the illegal immigrants arriving in small boats?  In the UK, there were 7,924 documented migrants crossing the channel in the first 9 months of 2020; who knows how many undocumented ones.  They must be a dangerous source of infection.  Do the similarities of the two islands perhaps break down there?

Immigrants rarely reach New Zealand in small boats. 

 

If they are lucky enough to land in Australian waters, then they are unluckily sent to an interment camp on an island of Papua New Guinea

As I mentioned it’s the arse end of the world 

 

 

[Costock_Fox]

11 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Anyone know...? 

I don’t think they need to mate, I saw something on the news a few months ago that said you can keep testing positive but don’t shed the virus after the first 2 weeks or something like that.

 

Obviously the science changes quickly on this so don’t take my words as gospel. To be fair, if anyone takes anything I say on here as gospel then Covid isn’t their biggest concern.

 

Edit- I’ve just re read your original post and realise this wasn’t even the question  

Edited 4 January 2021 by Costock_Fox

[Leicester_Loyal]

5 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Anyone know...? 

I think it would be a new case Stan. 
 

I’ve seen that those in hospital testing positive have to have tests every other day too, so perhaps they would count as a new ‘case’ too? If that’s the case then no wonder natural immunity is a long way away! 

[Pliskin]

9 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Anyone know...? 

I though you couldn’t take tests that close? 
 

But in theory I would imagine it will. I think it is purely a tally system I’d imagine. 
 

having said that though you can pay to have a test done if you need to travel abroad for work can’t you? So I wonder if these tests are fussing the figures a bit. I know a colleague of mine goes to Holland every few weeks, he has a test when he goes and then two days later when he comes back. So if you can pay for them I wonder if people are getting these tests done getting a positive result, and then re taking a few days later to see if it is positive again?

 

Just a theory nothing legit.

[Costock_Fox]

Shall we compare with New Zealand lads? Hearing it’s not been done

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I think it would be a new case Stan. 
 

I’ve seen that those in hospital testing positive have to have tests every other day too, so perhaps they would count as a new ‘case’ too? If that’s the case then no wonder natural immunity is a long way away! 

 

1 minute ago, Pliskin said:

I though you couldn’t take tests that close? 
 

But in theory I would imagine it will. I think it is purely a tally system I’d imagine. 
 

having said that though you can pay to have a test done if you need to travel abroad for work can’t you? So I wonder if these tests are fussing the figures a bit. I know a colleague of mine goes to Holland every few weeks, he has a test when he goes and then two days later when he comes back. So if you can pay for them I wonder if people are getting these tests done getting a positive result, and then re taking a few days later to see if it is positive again?

 

Just a theory nothing legit.

Cheers both. I think I'm just struggling to get my head around the vast volume of positive cases around these days. 

[Pliskin]

2 minutes ago, Blackboots only said:

Immigrants rarely reach New Zealand in small boats. 

 

If they are lucky enough to land in Australian waters, then they are unluckily sent to an interment camp on an island of Papua New Guinea

As I mentioned it’s the arse end of the world 

 

 

I read that there were 25 breaches during lockdown in NZ of the borders, 25 detected anyway, which is still a damn site lower than what we get anyway. 
 

I agree NZ geographically has an advantage, but they do still trade with other nations, particularly nations that have been badly impacted by the virus. And would have suffered the same as Europe had they not have taken the action they did as soon as they did. 
 

We could have closed our borders to everything other than import/exports and essential business travel... so no holidays or unnecessary travel between nations. Or at least close them until you have an idea of how to control the situation I just find it insane that we could see what was happening across mainland Europe, yet failed to do anything until we ourselves had lost control of the virus here.
 

Hindsight and all that, but it’s not like it secretly keeps up on us, we new it was coming, yet failed to adequately prepare.

[Alf Bentley]

41 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

How does New Zealand deal with the illegal immigrants arriving in small boats?  In the UK, there were 7,924 documented migrants crossing the channel in the first 9 months of 2020; who knows how many undocumented ones.  They must be a dangerous source of infection.  Do the similarities of the two islands perhaps break down there?

 

Why "must" they be a dangerous source of infection? Because they're foreigners? Because they're migrants? Because they travelled in small boats? 

 

If you want to focus on migration, surely the millions who flew in from highly-infected countries like China, Italy, Spain, USA and Brazil were more of a concern than the thousands of would-be migrants/asylum seekers in small boats?

 

If you want to focus on race, surely us Brits are one of the races that currently constitute the most dangerous sources of infection, at 57,000+ new infections per day with the new variant spreading?

That's almost certainly more infected Brits per day than there are infected migrants in small boats in a whole year.

 

Anyway, I'm surprised to hear that you stayed on in Lancashire after losing your seat as an MEP, Mr. Griffin. 

[dsr-burnley]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Why "must" they be a dangerous source of infection? Because they're foreigners? Because they're migrants? Because they travelled in small boats? 

 

You seriously have to ask?  Because they are people.  This infection is carried by people.

 

If you are trying to isolate an island and 20,000 approx, estimated figure, people are arriving in unsanitary and non-socially-distanced conditions, then they are likely to be a dangerous source of coronavirus, especially if you are trying to 100% isolate like New Zealand was and is.  

 

Your Griffin comment is pathetic, and I hope it is unworthy of you.  

Edited 4 January 2021 by dsr-burnley

[Ollie93]

What I find amazing is that we still aren't implementing a quarantine period for those entering the country? And then no airport testing. 

 

Surely that is the one place that testing should've been brought in from the start. Its almost laughable now..

 

We lockdown the country but don't have airport testing 

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Why "must" they be a dangerous source of infection? Because they're foreigners? Because they're migrants? Because they travelled in small boats? 

 

If you want to focus on migration, surely the millions who flew in from highly-infected countries like China, Italy, Spain, USA and Brazil were more of a concern than the thousands of would-be migrants/asylum seekers in small boats?

 

If you want to focus on race, surely us Brits are one of the races that currently constitute the most dangerous sources of infection, at 57,000+ new infections per day with the new variant spreading?

That's almost certainly more infected Brits per day than there are infected migrants in small boats in a whole year.

 

Anyway, I'm surprised to hear that you stayed on in Lancashire after losing your seat as an MEP, Mr. Griffin. 

I think you’ve misinterpreted this one Alf or I have. If the point was to close the borders as that stops the infection coming in, having any foreign (don’t shoot me) bodies coming into the island is surely a risk?

[SpacedX]

46 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Yes and No.

 

New Zealand is a island 

the UK is an island

 

Yes New Zealand population is less and more spread out, but their inner city areas will be like any other city, densely populated and diverse. Whereas geographically it may be incomparable to the UK, in terms of decision making it need not be. They took early action and decisive action. They saw what was happening and decided to take action before the virus took hold of their population. 

 

New Zealand has a population of 4.8 million compared to 66.5 million in the UK. 3.8 million of which are in the north island. and 1.6 million of these in Auckland. Entry into the country is very strictly regulated and its border control designed to protect its biodiversity and ecosystem. I've lived in New Zealand and visited the country many times. Kiwis are fixers, doers, who tend to be stoic and resilient. They also strictly adhered to lockdown restrictions which the government instituted early and resolutely aiming for rapid elimination in which cities were shut down and the national parks closed. New Zealand's isolated location and low population was key - in addition to only having three major cities, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch - the next closest is Hamilton which is about the size of Colchester. The South Island is very sparsely populated and aside from Christchurch, Dunedin is the next biggest settlement, around the size of Doncaster. 

 

Saying that, unlike the UK, national lockdown was immediate, stringent and the population complicit. Their 'Level 4' restrictions meant grocery stores, pharmacies, hospitals, and petrol stations were the only commerce allowed; vehicle travel was restricted; and social interaction was limited to within households. This science driven strategy could work anywhere that has functioning government and infrastructure, as we've seen in Vietnam, Taiwan, China and parts of Australia - particularly Victoria. 

 

The county will need to maintain the total halt on arrivals until a vaccine is developed and widely disseminated or risk the threat of reinfection. That’s a big ask for a country where tourism, New Zealand’s largest export industry in terms of foreign exchange earning, accounts for 10 percent of GDP and nearly 15 percent of the workforce. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, and forecasts indicate that the economy will not recover until the latter half of the decade. Interestingly, I was reading a recent survey which showed that 87 percent of Kiwis supported the harsh restrictions understanding that decisive action was necessary to bring about a swifter end to the crisis. Unlike our own faltering and hesitant government over here, together with the scientifically illiterate fools that bemoan wearing a facemask in public, not being able to congregate in a pub or go to a football stadium and in between clanging their pots and pans for the NHS - insist on doing this at the slightest hint of  the mercury rising into the mid twenties...

 

So no, nothing like the UK. 

[Pliskin]

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

New Zealand has a population of 4.8 million compared to 66.5 million in the UK. 3.8 million of which are in the north island. and 1.6 million of these in Auckland. Entry into the country is very strictly regulated and its border control designed to protect its biodiversity and ecosystem. I've lived in New Zealand and visited the country many times. Kiwis are fixers, doers, who tend to be stoic and resilient. They also strictly adhered to lockdown restrictions which the government instituted early and resolutely aiming for rapid elimination in which cities were shut down and the national parks closed. New Zealand's isolated location and low population was key - in addition to only having three major cities, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch - the next closest is Hamilton which is about the size of Colchester. The South Island is very sparsely populated and aside from Christchurch, Dunedin is the next biggest settlement, around the size of Doncaster. 

 

Saying that, unlike the UK, national lockdown was immediate, stringent and the population complicit. Their 'Level 4' restrictions meant grocery stores, pharmacies, hospitals, and petrol stations were the only commerce allowed; vehicle travel was restricted; and social interaction was limited to within households. This science driven strategy could work anywhere that has functioning government and infrastructure, as we've seen in Vietnam, Taiwan, China and parts of Australia - particularly Victoria. 

 

The county will need to maintain the total halt on arrivals until a vaccine is developed and widely disseminated or risk the threat of reinfection. That’s a big ask for a country where tourism, New Zealand’s largest export industry in terms of foreign exchange earning, accounts for 10 percent of GDP and nearly 15 percent of the workforce. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, and forecasts indicate that the economy will not recover until the latter half of the decade. Interestingly, I was reading a recent survey which showed that 87 percent of Kiwis supported the harsh restrictions understanding that decisive action was necessary to bring about a swifter end to the crisis. Unlike our own faltering and hesitant government over here, together with the scientifically illiterate fools that bemoan wearing a facemask in public, not being able to congregate in a pub or go to a football stadium and in between clanging their pots and pans for the NHS - insist on doing this at the slightest hint of  the mercury rising into the mid twenties...

 

So no, nothing like the UK. 

Good post, nice to get some insight in situations like this. 

 

Your second paragraph is pertinent to our situation, yes geographically you cant really compare, and population is also another major factor too, but my gripe is as you also point out in your latter paragraph is the reactions... 

 

Both the reaction from the NZ government and people has been exemplary, as you have pointed out. That is my main gripe, the reaction and handling of the situation as a whole in this country has been a sorry mess. Your picture there says it all in regards to the how sections of the public have reacted. 

 

All in all, it's been one big **** up from the offset. 

 

[leicsmac]

Seeing as the topic of comparisons has come up again, I'll also repeat what I've said before - Korea is also an island nation (functionally) and has a similar population to the UK.

 

It imposed two week quarantine for anyone coming in right at the start, but that is only a part of the relative success it has had fighting this thing, and by no means the biggest.

[Alf Bentley]

23 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

You seriously have to ask?  Because they are people.  This infection is carried by people.

 

So why focus on a particular tiny sliver of those "people" - the "people" who migrated to this country by a particularly rare (if growing) form of transport?

 

Why not focus on the vast numbers of "people" already in this country and infected or getting infected here every day?

 

Or if you wanted to focus on Covid-control of migration (a valid point - I supported Covid testing at airports/ports in the spring, as many did), why not focus on the majority of migrants who arrive by plane, ferry or Eurostar?

There were a lot fewer such travellers than usual in 2020, but there were still a lot more than arrived in small boats via people smugglers - particularly in early spring when the virus first got established here....and the effort to control that was pitiful.

 

Once the virus got into this country to a signficant extent - almost certainly mainly from people arriving from China, Italy, Spain etc. - the main danger was internal, not from migrants in small boats.

Of course, proper control of attempted illegal migration was needed, but tests and quarantining of the much larger numbers arriving into airports (both foreigners and returning Brits) would've been a much bigger danger than small boats....and the response to that remained pitiful.

 

 

 

[CosbehFox]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Seeing as the topic of comparisons has come up again, I'll also repeat what I've said before - Korea is also an island nation (functionally) and has a similar population to the UK.

 

It imposed two week quarantine for anyone coming in right at the start, but that is only a part of the relative success it has had fighting this thing, and by no means the biggest.

Obvs a lot smaller nation but I read about Taiwan deals with incoming persons from abroad. Absolutely superb - balancing the line between protective and actually caring 

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

How does New Zealand deal with the illegal immigrants arriving in small boats?  

They don't - primarily because the Tasman sea and the Pacific Ocean is not the Straits of Dover. 

 

Nonetheless, they have been smuggled in larger vessels and stowaways are an issue which is why in 2013 a Migration Amendment Bill was introduced which would allow the government to mandatorily detain refugees who arrive by boat in groups of ten or more. 

 

Ironic, since the Polynesian Mariners that settled NZ over a millennia ago (the Maori's are thought to have been of Tahitian origin) were great seafarers traversing vast distances navigating by the ocean currents, winds and stars in double canoes and single outriggers. 

[StanSP]

58 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Why "must" they be a dangerous source of infection? Because they're foreigners? Because they're migrants? Because they travelled in small boats? 

 

If you want to focus on migration, surely the millions who flew in from highly-infected countries like China, Italy, Spain, USA and Brazil were more of a concern than the thousands of would-be migrants/asylum seekers in small boats?

 

If you want to focus on race, surely us Brits are one of the races that currently constitute the most dangerous sources of infection, at 57,000+ new infections per day with the new variant spreading?

That's almost certainly more infected Brits per day than there are infected migrants in small boats in a whole year.

 

Anyway, I'm surprised to hear that you stayed on in Lancashire after losing your seat as an MEP, Mr. Griffin. 

Well said.

 

46 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think you’ve misinterpreted this one Alf or I have. If the point was to close the borders as that stops the infection coming in, having any foreign (don’t shoot me) bodies coming into the island is surely a risk?

I don't think he did misinterpret it. Everyone is dangerous at these times but that poster decided to single out migrants as a 'dangerous source'. It's no different to people flying in to the country...

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I think you’ve misinterpreted this one Alf or I have. If the point was to close the borders as that stops the infection coming in, having any foreign (don’t shoot me) bodies coming into the island is surely a risk?

So then let's do it. We have a government that was apparently elected on taking back control of our borders and yet we seem to have some of the worst checks on incoming travellers in the developed world. Why is there such concern over a few hundred migrants arriving by dingy but not hundreds of thousands of travellers who haven't been checked or monitored adequately for nearly 12 months now. 

Edited 4 January 2021 by bovril

[Sol thewall Bamba]

I came across this last night, I couldn't find the source but even if the figures are a little out it still paints a rough picture. Vaccinating the 4 million most vulnerable people would cover off 66% of the cumulative deaths, that's a massive reduction in the deaths which could be done relatively quickly. 

 

Imo once we've done everyone over 75 (which would take 8.7 million total vaccinations), that's a 78% drop in deaths, yes I'm assuming 100% immunity but this is all just rough numbers anyway. At that point surely we'd be having serious conversation about getting back to normal? Proper normal that is. 

 

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but look at those vaccination numbers to prevent one death in the lower categories, 94,000 jabs to save one life under 50, if we're still sat inside at that point...

[Alf Bentley]

32 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think you’ve misinterpreted this one Alf or I have. If the point was to close the borders as that stops the infection coming in, having any foreign (don’t shoot me) bodies coming into the island is surely a risk?

 

There is absolutely a valid debate to be had over controls at borders. I'm not sure that closing borders entirely was ever feasible for long - and other measures would have taken time to put in place.

 

But it should have been possible, within weeks (?), to establish a system for testing at borders and properly monitoring quarantine for incoming travelers....especially as Johnson announced in early May we'd soon have a "world-beating" test-and-trace system. Small boats? The failure to exercise proper control over the much bigger influx of conventional travelers and to do better at controling the internal UK virus spread mattered much, much more than a few infected migrants in small boats.

 

Yes, every body, foreign or otherwise matters. Yes, I'm sure some people caught the virus from migrants who arrived in small boats. But I'm sure an awful lot more caught it due to infected conventional travelers circulating unchecked (foreigners and returning Brits) - and due to the lamentable govt performance at tackling the problem internally.

 

Yet our Burnley friend chose to take a valid debate about Covid border control measures and focus it on migrants in small boats who, beyond any reasonable doubt, were a tiny part of the problem. He said they "must be a dangerous source of infection" (presumably in comparison to other people). Yet Covid infection rates peaked in early spring and have soared again now in the winter......whereas most migrants in small boats arrive in better weather, like in the summer when UK infection rates fell.....

 

There is "a" risk of Covid infections being spread by small boat migrants. There is a risk of you or me getting beaten to death today and the murderer being a Jew, but I don't think undue focus should be placed on that latter risk.

 

 

[Finnaldo]

1 minute ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I came across this last night, I couldn't find the source but even if the figures are a little out it still paints a rough picture. Vaccinating the 4 million most vulnerable people would cover off 66% of the cumulative deaths, that's a massive reduction in the deaths which could be done relatively quickly. 

 

Imo once we've done everyone over 75 (which would take 8.7 million total vaccinations), that's a 78% drop in deaths, yes I'm assuming 100% immunity but this is all just rough numbers anyway. At that point surely we'd be having serious conversation about getting back to normal? Proper normal that is. 

 

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but look at those vaccination numbers to prevent one death in the lower categories, 94,000 jabs to save one life under 50, if we're still sat inside at that point...

That’s a pretty important step, but it’ll be the reduction in hospitalisations, as to alleviate the pressure on the NHS, that’ll be the golden egg, I imagine that’ll be closer to vaccinating the over 50s to react that landmark,

[Sol thewall Bamba]

6 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

That’s a pretty important step, but it’ll be the reduction in hospitalisations, as to alleviate the pressure on the NHS, that’ll be the golden egg, I imagine that’ll be closer to vaccinating the over 50s to react that landmark,

Yeah that would have been a useful number on that chart. But surely there is a correlation between deaths and hospital admissions by category, even if it's a rough one.

[dsr-burnley]

42 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

So why focus on a particular tiny sliver of those "people" - the "people" who migrated to this country by a particularly rare (if growing) form of transport?

 

Why not focus on the vast numbers of "people" already in this country and infected or getting infected here every day?

 

Or if you wanted to focus on Covid-control of migration (a valid point - I supported Covid testing at airports/ports in the spring, as many did), why not focus on the majority of migrants who arrive by plane, ferry or Eurostar?

There were a lot fewer such travellers than usual in 2020, but there were still a lot more than arrived in small boats via people smugglers - particularly in early spring when the virus first got established here....and the effort to control that was pitiful.

 

Once the virus got into this country to a signficant extent - almost certainly mainly from people arriving from China, Italy, Spain etc. - the main danger was internal, not from migrants in small boats.

Of course, proper control of attempted illegal migration was needed, but tests and quarantining of the much larger numbers arriving into airports (both foreigners and returning Brits) would've been a much bigger danger than small boats....and the response to that remained pitiful.

 

 

 

Because I was talking about New Zealand.  Pliskin made a direct comparison between New Zealand and the UK both being islands, and I made a slightly oblique comment about if we were like New Zealand,.an island with basically no coronavirus, how we would cope with a relatively large number of people arriving unregistered from unsanitary and overcrowded boats, some of them captured en route and others slipping into the country unseen.

[dsr-burnley]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Yet our Burnley friend chose to take a valid debate about Covid border control measures and focus it on migrants in small boats who, beyond any reasonable doubt, were a tiny part of the problem. He said they "must be a dangerous source of infection" (presumably in comparison to other people).

That's right.  IF THERE IS NO CORONAVIRUS IN THE COUNTRY, SUCH AS IN NEW ZEALAND - then 20,000 migrants packed into little boats would be a relatively dangerous source of infection in comparison to other people.  In the UK as it stands they are not dangerous - nor for that matter are other travellers - because relative to other people they don't have any more infection.  Once the infection is in, there effect of letting a little bit more in isn't enough to really matter.  But when there isn't much infection, or even none at all, a little bit extra is lethal.