The virus. PPE. Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uncle Fester said:
I'm not arguing that the New York State (sadly I don't think all states in the USA are governed as effectively, so I won't use the word 'American') is a model of perfection. As you rightly say, there is no mention of PPE.

It just seems to me that the UK's five tests are vague and lacking in detail. Whether that's a strength or weakness, I don't know.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see some detailed proposals about the level of community testing and contact tracing they are planning. We know about the smartphone app, noises have been made about recruiting contact tracers, and they'll certainly be doing limited testing for community surveillance, but I have't seen anything like a plan for going after every case and their contacts. Without this, our only response to rising numbers of cases will be a return to tighter restrictions that limit contacts and further lockdowns. The virus isn't going anywhere.
 
Uncle Fester said:
I agree that both methods have pro's and cons, but I don't think it's as simple as saying whether we want humans or computers deciding for us.

Number one, say's 'we must be confident', number 4 & 5 use the phrase 'Be confident'.

Who exactly is the 'we' and who exactly is 'being confident' - the politicians or the scientists?

If it was made clear that it is the scientists who make the decision whether the criteria are being met or not, I for one, would have greater confidence in the five tests.

Much less so, if it is down to the interpretation of politicians, especially given the vagueness of the criteria.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of leaving scientists to decide what to do when it seems appropriate but left to them we might be relying on heard immunity right now. That might be the right way to go in the long run, who knows? But even if it is I doubt many people in the UK would vote for it or agree with it. I suppose if scientists are in charge they could just ignore what non scientists say and think. We could try being a meritocracy but the same dangers may exist. They could just ignore anyone they see as unfit to listen too. I suppose democracy is awful until we consider the alternatives. BJ may be a power mad loon but if you or I want to kick him out and take his job there's at least a chance we can do that in a democracy, maybe there's less chance of replacing those at the top if they're scientists.

I can't say I agree or disagree, just thinking out loud :D
 
Last edited:
Retune said:
I'd like to see some detailed proposals about the level of community testing and contact tracing they are planning. We know about the smartphone app, noises have been made about recruiting contact tracers, and they'll certainly be doing limited testing for community surveillance, but I have't seen anything like a plan for going after every case and their contacts. Without this, our only response to rising numbers of cases will be a return to tighter restrictions that limit contacts and further lockdowns. The virus isn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

I can see the need for testing and no doubt large numbers are being tested but I'd feel better and safer if it was accompanied by large amounts of contact tracing and isolation.
 
woof woof said:
One thing about the Americans I've met is that they can be the loveliest most friendly and caring people you'd ever meet but if the conversation goes to another area I've at times been just... astonished.
Click to expand...

I found exactly this, whilst at a hotel bar in Venice Fl. a chap and his wife came over and aked if they could join us, no problem there. It turned out he was a hobbyist wildlife photographer much like myself, we chatted for about an hour so whilst downing a few drinks, then out of the blue he comes out with " do you mind if I raise a toast".."not at all" says I thinking what decent chap, his toast went along the lines of "raise your glasses to the white man on his white charger defending this great nation"............see ya.
 
woof woof said:
I like the idea of leaving scientists to decide what to do when it seems appropriate but left to them we might be relying on heard immunity right now. That might be the right way to go in the long run, who knows?
Click to expand...
Part of the problem here was that the science was neither known nor proven (still isn't) and the politicians seized upon the least disruptive option. I can understand why they did that but some form of consensus view not left only to the politicians would possibly have been more beneficial. Or going back to their pandemic plans and implementing them while still hoping for the best?

In any event, we will surely be better prepared for the next one.
 
mex said:
I found exactly this, whilst at a hotel bar in Venice Fl. a chap and his wife came over and aked if they could join us, no problem there. It turned out he was a hobbyist wildlife photographer much like myself, we chatted for about an hour so whilst downing a few drinks, then out of the blue he comes out with " do you mind if I raise a toast".."not at all" says I thinking what decent chap, his toast went along the lines of "raise your glasses to the white man on his white charger defending this great nation"............see ya.
Click to expand...

I find it has the most effect when it seems to just come out of nowhere and smacks you over the head. You're left thinking WTF just happened?

Still, you have to respect their right to enjoy and cherish their own culture and beliefs.

:D
 
The news today said that London now has the lowers R and my home, the NE of England, has the highest.

Well I never. Who'd have thunk it?

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with some people seeming to behave just as normal and others having street parties and community barbecues. Could it?
 
woof woof said:
I like the idea of leaving scientists to decide what to do when it seems appropriate but left to them we might be relying on heard immunity right now. That might be the right way to go in the long run, who knows? But even if it is I doubt many people in the UK would vote for it or agree with it. I suppose if scientists are in charge they could just ignore what non scientists say and think. We could try being a meritocracy but the same dangers may exist. They could just ignore anyone they see as unfit to listen too. I suppose democracy is awful until we consider the alternatives. BJ may be a power mad loon but if you or I want to kick him out and take his job there's at least a chance we can do that in a democracy, maybe there's less chance of replacing those at the top if they're scientists.

I can't say I agree or disagree, just thinking out loud :D
Click to expand...
In the end it has to be a political decision. Scientists can only advise, unless they themselves become elected politicians (Taiwan, which has done very well in the pandemic, has an epidemiologist, Chen Chien-jen, as Vice President). In the UK, the Government didn't take the outbreak seriously enough at first, and then (for whatever reason) took on board a particular and rather blinkered view of how to deal with it. There was an unexamined assumption that at some point we'd have to abandon community testing and contact tracing and deal with the growing epidemic in much the same way as influenza. They didn't build up testing capacity because it didn't occur to them they'd have a use for it when community transmission began in earnest. It would be enough just to test the patients who ended up in hospital. Nobody asked the modellers to look at an aggressive test, trace and isolate scenario and perhaps it didn't occur to them to do it anyway - after all, they were repurposing code they'd originally written to predict the effect of interventions in influenza.

Meanwhile, ignored by Westminster, epidemiologists outside the tent were now horrified by talk of herd immunity, and the WHO was becoming more strident in its calls to test, trace and isolate. And various Asian democracies were making policy based on entirely different assumptions. Their previous experiences with MERS or SARS had in a very real sense inoculated these societies against the next coronavirus - not at an individual, biological level, but in the way in which they had been primed to construct and rapidly deploy defensive mechanisms like temperature scanners, masks, testing capacity and new approaches to contact tracing. Perhaps the burned hand teaches best, but the lessons of MERS, SARS and the influenza pandemics of the last century ought to have been learnt by every government.
 
woof woof said:
I like the idea of leaving scientists to decide what to do when it seems appropriate but left to them we might be relying on heard immunity right now. That might be the right way to go in the long run, who knows? But even if it is I doubt many people in the UK would vote for it or agree with it. I suppose if scientists are in charge they could just ignore what non scientists say and think. We could try being a meritocracy but the same dangers may exist. They could just ignore anyone they see as unfit to listen too. I suppose democracy is awful until we consider the alternatives. BJ may be a power mad loon but if you or I want to kick him out and take his job there's at least a chance we can do that in a democracy, maybe there's less chance of replacing those at the top if they're scientists.

I can't say I agree or disagree, just thinking out loud :D
Click to expand...

I’m not suggesting that scientists make decisions and certainly not policy, I’m merely suggesting that they could be the ones who decide whether the ‘tests’ have been met or not, as the definition of those tests are vague.

Mind you, if ‘The Shape of Things to Come’ is anything to go by, then maybe having the scientists run things would be the best option.
 
Uncle Fester said:
I’m not suggesting that scientists make decisions and certainly not policy, I’m merely suggesting that they could be the ones who decide whether the ‘tests’ have been met or not, as the definition of those tests are vague.
Click to expand...

A problem with leaving scientists to decide is that often 'facts' are often interpreted through expectation and 'belief'. I have been in an international conference discussing the role of AMH in predicting fertility of aging women and seen opinion leaders debating from diametrically opposing positions from the same data set. Now scientists also have a range of views on politics that are just as wide ranging and deeply held as any you see here, and those views would certainly shape their interpretation of the data to fit what the 'knew' to be right.

Much better for an elected representative to be able to call on a range of views and then make a judgement accordingly.

So those 'fuzzy' 5 tests have been written to allow wiggle room in deciding when to do what, rather than giving precise definitions with which they will be hung later if they don't follow some ill-chosen rules that were set some time before.
 
ancient_mariner said:
A problem with leaving scientists to decide is that often 'facts' are often interpreted through expectation and 'belief'. I have been in an international conference discussing the role of AMH in predicting fertility of aging women and seen opinion leaders debating from diametrically opposing positions from the same data set. Now scientists also have a range of views on politics that are just as wide ranging and deeply held as any you see here, and those views would certainly shape their interpretation of the data to fit what the 'knew' to be right.

Much better for an elected representative to be able to call on a range of views and then make a judgement accordingly.

So those 'fuzzy' 5 tests have been written to allow wiggle room in deciding when to do what, rather than giving precise definitions with which they will be hung later if they don't follow some ill-chosen rules that were set some time before.
Click to expand...
I’m sure that’s true but it would be good to see more MPs etc with a scientific or technical background/education, look how well it went with Margaret Thatcher ... wait ... hmmm :(.
 
sphexx said:
I’m sure that’s true but it would be good to see more MPs etc with a scientific or technical background/education, look how well it went with Margaret Thatcher ... wait ... hmmm :(.
Click to expand...

Curiously I was having a discussion with my mother last night about 'interesting' leaders versus grey men like John Major. A grey man and centreist politics is better for the country than a colourful character and swings to the left or right, but everyone wants a leader that excites them instead.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Much better for an elected representative to be able to call on a range of views and then make a judgement accordingly.
Click to expand...

I’m sure you’re right.

Let’s just hope that the politician who fiddled the testing target figure, doesn’t choose to define ‘sufficient capacity’ or ‘manageable levels’ to suit his interests rather than those of the country.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Curiously I was having a discussion with my mother last night about 'interesting' leaders versus grey men like John Major. A grey man and centreist politics is better for the country than a colourful character and swings to the left or right, but everyone wants a leader that excites them instead.
Click to expand...
I think the best example of the “grey man” was Clement Attlee.
 
sphexx said:
I think the best example of the “grey man” was Clement Attlee.
Click to expand...
He might have been a ‘grey man’ but he was a great Labour prime minister who was robbed of a 2nd term because of the absurdity of our electoral system.
 
jakeblu said:
He might have been a ‘grey man’ but he was a great Labour prime minister who was robbed of a 2nd term because of the absurdity of our electoral system.
Click to expand...
I don’t actually think he was ”grey” just people perceived him as such, perhaps particularly Churchill.
 
woof woof said:
The news today said that London now has the lowers R and my home, the NE of England, has the highest.

Well I never. Who'd have thunk it?

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with some people seeming to behave just as normal and others having street parties and community barbecues. Could it?
Click to expand...

Same here in the Northwest with garden parties and only tonight simpletons in Tesco who are unable to follow the one way rule.
 
Uncle Fester said:
I’m sure you’re right.

Let’s just hope that the politician who fiddled the testing target figure, doesn’t choose to define ‘sufficient capacity’ or ‘manageable levels’ to suit his interests rather than those of the country.
Click to expand...
If enough people disagree with their choices then they lose their seat at the next election.
 
dcash29 said:
Same here in the Northwest with garden parties and only tonight simpletons in Tesco who are unable to follow the one way rule.
Click to expand...

NHS nurses would agree with you

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52662119

My estate held a gathering on the communal lawns on Friday !!
Seems that because they were supposedly keeping social distancing despite
many being deaf, the sharing food and being served with hot and cold drinks
was ok.
The result of this is that all coffee meets are now banned and if it happens again sitting in the
gardens will be too.
Ok for those with house and small patios (the instigators) but not for those living in the flats and
the many who need the gardens because they can't walk far
Oh and yes last night they were all out clapping
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
If enough people disagree with their choices then they lose their seat at the next election.
Click to expand...
I believe that compulsory voting would be a good thing at all levels of government.

Polling station sign on approach to CstM Village Hall IMG_7930.JPG
 
Last edited:
We visited my wife's grandparents at their sheltered accommodation the day after VE day. We noticed that all the chairs that were still out in the garden from their garden party the day before, all set out in a circle with no space between them.

We brought this up with my wife's nan and she said that they were all at least 2m apart, but they pushed them all together when they went in.

I call bullpoo. :LOL:
 
ancient_mariner said:
If enough people disagree with their choices then they lose their seat at the next election.
Click to expand...


I must be rather less optimistic in the people’s sense of outrage and ability to recall any possible manipulation of figures than you are.

It seems to me that people have already forgotten that the current health secretary said he wouldn’t stand for the prorogation of parliament, but now happily serves the man who prorogued parliament and that was only a matter of months ago.

We seem not only to tolerate lies, but are happy to vote for the liars if we like the untruths they tell. Hypocrisy and manipulation of the truth isn’t even a blip on the radar anymore.
 
There have been several of us here who have been impressed on how Nicola Sturgeon has come across at her daily Covid briefings, so I thought this was an interesting comment from a BBC Scotland interview today (there is no direct link, it's just on the list of today's news items.)

"Comparing Scotland with other parts of Europe, other parts of the world, I'd say you're doing good because you are tackling it carefully and logically. You are thinking through how do we make sure people are safe and how do we make sure the economy can restart? And you are layering these two together. There are some countries which are saying it's either the economy or people's health and they are presenting it as a choice. It's not a choice. You are watching, learning, applying, coming to terms with it. And most importantly you are levelling with the people what the government is trying to work through."​
​
Dr David Nabarro Special envoy to the World Health Organisation on Covid-19​
 
Uncle Fester said:
I must be rather less optimistic in the people’s sense of outrage and ability to recall any possible manipulation of figures than you are.

It seems to me that people have already forgotten that the current health secretary said he wouldn’t stand for the prorogation of parliament, but now happily serves the man who prorogued parliament and that was only a matter of months ago.

We seem not only to tolerate lies, but are happy to vote for the liars if we like the untruths they tell. Hypocrisy and manipulation of the truth isn’t even a blip on the radar anymore.
Click to expand...

This piece compares Johnson with his other hero Ronald Reagan:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ng-optimism-reality-ronald-reagan-half-truths
 
sphexx said:
This piece compares Johnson with his other hero Ronald Reagan:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ng-optimism-reality-ronald-reagan-half-truths
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. It's an interesting, if slightly depressing read.

I think back to the Reagan (and Thatcher) years as the time of the genesis of the current political malaise that the USA and UK find themselves in.

The con that was 'Reaganomics' and 'trickle down' haunts us today, with many believing those lies. Not least, many of our current generation of politicians.

Anyhow, back to the here and now.......
 
myotis said:
There have been several of us here who have been impressed on how Nicola Sturgeon has come across at her daily Covid briefings, so I thought this was an interesting comment from a BBC Scotland interview today (there is no direct link, it's just on the list of today's news items.)

"Comparing Scotland with other parts of Europe, other parts of the world, I'd say you're doing good because you are tackling it carefully and logically. You are thinking through how do we make sure people are safe and how do we make sure the economy can restart? And you are layering these two together. There are some countries which are saying it's either the economy or people's health and they are presenting it as a choice. It's not a choice. You are watching, learning, applying, coming to terms with it. And most importantly you are levelling with the people what the government is trying to work through."​
​
Dr David Nabarro Special envoy to the World Health Organisation on Covid-19​
Click to expand...
I'm not her #1 fan but she's doing a good job on this one.
 
Just listening to Matt Hancock giving the daily briefing.

Since the changes to the lock down were announced I have heard every new measure mentioned every time I have heard one of the briefings, with the exception of one of the changes.

This is the change that said you can drive as far as you want in England to take exercise.

I wonder if the government have realised it wasn't the most sensible of measures.

Dave
 
Donnie said:
:tumbleweed:
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are implying.
Surely to get the economy up and running again it is important to know how the virus is currently spreading throughout the community. You will already know that during the influenza season it is often rampant in care homes, so by measuring the R number across all places it is not giving a true picture of what is going on currently in the community.
 
Donnie said:
:tumbleweed:
Click to expand...

The official estimate of the pandemic "R" number has risen slightly over the last week, according to a consensus by scientists advising the government.

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) said the UK reproduction number for the coronavirus is now between 0.7 and 1, up from 0.5 to 0.9 last week.


The slight increase, based on calculations done by six research groups, is being attributed to cases in care homes and hospitals accounting for a greater proportion of the overall total.
 
Peter10d said:
The slight increase, based on calculations done by six research groups, is being attributed to cases in care homes and hospitals accounting for a greater proportion of the overall total.
Click to expand...
Given that we're told many infectees suffer no obvious symptoms and that we're doing very limited testing, I can't see the point of basing the calculation of the reinfection rate on a relatively controlled population in hospitals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top