Coronavirus

[i-Ram]

40 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Seen a lot of Australians saying taht they're surprised that we aren't taking their approach. 

I just can't see how it's possible, Australia is nothing like UK geographicaly or do local authorities have the type of powers australian states have to stop movements throughout the country. 

UK has a greater population and therefore attracts more people in and out of the country. The spread is throughout the country, not in isolated places and has been since the beginning of the crisis. 

The cat is well out the bag for complete eradication unfortunately. 

Ignore any Australian viewpoint buddy. They can’t even keep snakes from coming out of their dunnies.

[maxjam]

32 minutes ago, Albert said:

No doubt, the long term consequences are devastating. My only point is that there is, at the very least, a way that the damage can be minimised, while saving lives on all fronts.

Something we agree on.

 

32 minutes ago, Albert said:

That's the frustrating part in this all. Lockdowns have consequences, but the consequences for not doing so are worse. The path to zero is a ray of hope, but I do agree, it is something that not every country is organised enough to achieve. Realistically though, there are far more countries on that path than many give credit.

Its not as black and white as you make it out to be though, I have linked several articles that suggest further debate is warranted.

 

32 minutes ago, Albert said:

I guess the real point in it all though is that it's not a trade off of 'economics v lives' as some like to suggest though, anything but going to zero will have a horrible toll in both human and economic terms. Maintaining zero takes a great deal of work in and of itself. Even in the countries that have achieved it, there is still an economic toll as well of course, as all had to deal with those initial lockdowns, as well as the impacts of being cut off from the rest of the World.

And thats the key point, although imho I think that you have misunderstood my point of view slightly in that it is not just about economy vs lives.  Economics are secondary to lives but the economy does have a role to play in any lockdown.  In the short term lives maybe saved but in the long term more lives maybe lost due to our ability to function properly during the lockdown and the damage we have done to our economy.

 

32 minutes ago, Albert said:

Again, nobody is claiming, nor should claim, to have all the answers, as there are so many questions still to be answered on so many fronts. It will be a fascinating journey over the next decade or so out of this, however that comes.

Although you seem resolute in your opinions and quite dismissive of mine?  To repeat myself again (I keep saying I won't but I'm beginning to feel as though I'm close to a break through!) there is a discussion to be had about the long term effects of lockdowns, the consequences of which we won't fully grasp until all of this is over.  I don't claim to be right but I have seen a lot of people, economists and doctors beginning to argue that continued lockdowns will result in more death and misery than we'd save in the short term. 

Maybe Sweden has it right afterall?  Praised for their approach at the beginning, then criticised as the deaths started to mount up as they didn't lockdown.  There's your case study right there, in a few years after covid is (hopefully) a distant memory we'll see whether the Swedish approach resulted in more or less total deaths overall than countries that locked down.

 

32 minutes ago, Albert said:

The elephant in the room is, of course, the vaccine, which is still no guarantee. I do worry about how people will respond to a lag between one being available, and when it can be distributed wide enough to have an effect. Even with a vaccine, I do fear a swansong wave from people immediately giving up on restrictions once vaccinated, despite immunity taking time to develop, and only parts of the population having it.

Absolutely - and its another reason why uncertainty surrounds continued lockdowns.  You are rolling up problems praying that a vaccine becomes available sooner rather than later.  If its a year, two years, five years away lockdowns will have financially crippled us all anyway.

 

42 minutes ago, Albert said:

The one thing worth considering is how the World responds to the differing levels of economic impact. If countries like Australia, New Zealand, etc all maintain what they've done, and are joined by others, there is a real risk of some countries being put at a serious disadvantage in the recovery.

As was highlighted in The Guardian article I linked earlier.  Unfortunately we all know the answer to this, countries will look after their own first and the strongest will survive as the weakest suffer the worst consequences ?

 

43 minutes ago, Albert said:

Oh well, let's hope that this second wave continues to slow. 

Amen.

[Andicis]

44 minutes ago, Albert said:

Maintaining zero takes a great deal of work in and of itself. Even in the countries that have achieved it, there is still an economic toll as well of course, as all had to deal with those initial lockdowns, as well as the impacts of being cut off from the rest of the World. 

It's beyond a comedy that you keep pretending getting ''zero covid'' is a possibility in the UK, it isn't. New Zealand and Australia are nothing like the UK. Nor are any of the other countries you're comparing with. They did strict lockdowns in mainland Europe, and never got close to that. Keeping up the facade it's an option is foolish. 

[jimmyp]

47 minutes ago, Andicis said:

It's beyond a comedy that you keep pretending getting ''zero covid'' is a possibility in the UK, it isn't. New Zealand and Australia are nothing like the UK. Nor are any of the other countries you're comparing with. They did strict lockdowns in mainland Europe, and never got close to that. Keeping up the facade it's an option is foolish. 

Do you believe it is foolish to continue to adopt parts or all of the zero-Covid approach? 

[Andicis]

4 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Do you believe it is foolish to continue to adopt parts or all of the zero-Covid approach? 

What's the point in adapting parts? Either do it, or don't do it. Shield the old, keep managing it so hospitals have enough capacity, but zero covid is fantasy until a vaccine exists. 

[jimmyp]

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

What's the point in adapting parts? Either do it, or don't do it. Shield the old, keep managing it so hospitals have enough capacity, but zero covid is fantasy until a vaccine exists. 

I think achieving the status of zero-Covid is possible. Very difficult but achievable without a vaccine. 

Nearly all worldwide health organisations believe this to be the case also. So do the majority of the worlds best universities and leading scientists in the relevant fields of science. 

It’s a shame we don’t currently seem prepared as a country to fully commit and work in unity to achieve this goal. 

I’m not discounting how incredibly hard this is going to be on our nation as a collective, but the idea of just letting the virus run its course or adopting any other policy in order to achieve some kind of compromise to living with the virus appears to be a very bad idea. 

Something we can all do to help our friends and family is to download the nhs app. It really can make a difference if people will just commit. 

[Andicis]

Just now, jimmyp said:

I think achieving the status of zero-Covid is possible. Very difficult but achievable without a vaccine. 

Nearly all worldwide health organisations believe this to be the case also. So do the majority of the worlds best universities and leading scientists in the relevant fields of science. 

It’s a shame we don’t currently seem prepared as a country to fully commit and work in unity to achieve this goal. 

I’m not discounting how incredibly hard this is going to be on our nation as a collective, but the idea of just letting the virus run its course or adopting any other policy in order to achieve some kind of compromise to living with the virus appears to be a very bad idea. 

Something we can all do to help our friends and family is to download the nhs app. It really can make a difference if people will just commit. 

It's not possible unless a.) the whole world does the same thing or b.) you shut the borders for an indefinite period of time. We're a global hub. We get poo loads of travelers passing through. Living with the virus is the only acceptable option in my opinion. 

[B4ev6is]

Well once again populations are breaking own freaking rules again one travling 400 plus miles on coach and then train on the way back and then she tested postive and then borris dad going into shops with out a mask on and the ex population seeing friends and family group more of 6 and dineing out with them there doing what ever they like one rule for us and another for them.

[jimmyp]

21 minutes ago, Andicis said:

It's not possible unless a.) the whole world does the same thing or b.) you shut the borders for an indefinite period of time. We're a global hub. We get poo loads of travelers passing through. Living with the virus is the only acceptable option in my opinion. 

Should we of fully adopted the zero-Covid approach when the pandemic began? 

[TimRam]

2 hours ago, Albert said:

Geographically the UK is more similar to somewhere like New Zealand, but the bigger point is that different countries with vastly different characteristics have managed such. Vietnam, for example, has a higher population than the UK, is more dense, and has indeed achieved that goal, even with land borders and a far weaker economy. As to others, Taiwan is an example of a country that is on the other end of the scale economically, but has achieved the same, despite ridiculous population density as well. 

For Australia, there has been a real battle to restrict movement, etc, but it was done as it was what was needed. To suggest that the UK simply couldn't is just defeatism. Equally, just because 'the cat is out of the bag' doesn't mean you can't fight it. It's not been all roses for Australia, with one state completely dropping the ball. Victoria, which is now on its way out of restrictions after a 6+ week lockdown to cope with that wave, has come from it being completely out of control. If the desire is there to fight it, it can be done, and given the economic and human benefits, surely that's worth it. 

I think Vietnam and Taiwan probably has a population who don't ignore advice or prone to going out and getting drunk in big crowds. Even some government officials in the uk flout the current health rules.

[B4ev6is]

4 minutes ago, TimRam said:

I think Vietnam and Taiwan probably has a population who don't ignore advice or prone to going out and getting drunk in big crowds. Even some government officials in the uk flout the current health rules.

Well I think they no intenions of following own freaking rules but yet they keep uk must keep making sacrifices more like forced once not chosen too.

[Andicis]

13 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Should we of fully adopted the zero-Covid approach when the pandemic began? 

Only if we were willingly to full commit to it. I don't think so. You're putting all your eggs in the vaccine basket in doing so.

[Gone]

I see now deaths are not rising, cases are not rising (and not rising anywhere near the prediction/forecast by Sir DR S Care-monger) Long Covid has become the new scare tactic. Discuss

[maxjam]

 

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I see now deaths are not rising, cases are not rising (and not rising anywhere near the prediction/forecast by Sir DR S Care-monger) Long Covid has become the new scare tactic. Discuss

It wasn't a prediction. 

[Andicis]

3 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

It wasn't a prediction. 

Then what was the point of it, other than fear mongering? 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, maxjam said:

Different climates and way of life though;

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/covid-19-appears-to-spread-less-in-warm-and-wet-climates-studies-suggest-1.5112505

So? Australia is warmer, Britain is wetter.

[Eddie]

Just now, Andicis said:

Then what was the point of it, other than fear mongering? 

It was a warning that if you play misguided games, you win misguided prizes.

/I'm not allowed to say 'stupid' or the 'B' word

[Gone]

5 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

It wasn't a prediction. 

It wasn’t very clever whatever it was. That’s been debated to death so let’s not kick that off again 

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

It was a warning that if you play misguided games, you win misguided prizes.

/I'm not allowed to say 'stupid' or the 'B' word

So they showed us a random exponential graph that was never going to come to pass for essentially no reason then?