Corona virus

[hammer1969]

And apparently Matt Hancock has just announced it is going to happen.

[Pirate Nick]

Found on Twitter from Professor Ian Donald.

1. The govt strategy on #Coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.

2. This all assumes I'm correct in what I think the govt are doing and why. I could be wrong - and wouldn't be surprised. But it looks to me like. . .

3. A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it. 

There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.

4. The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection

5. That's herd immunity.
Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.

6. That balance is the big risk.

All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.

7.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.

8. Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.

9. The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable

10. After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.

11. BUT a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will

12. The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.

13. Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise.  That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable

14. As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.

15. This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for #BorisJohnson to have had any role in developing.

[steve roberts]

27 minutes ago, hammer1969 said:

That would be discrimination, a lot of us oldies are fitter and take more care with our health  than youngsters. I daresay they would be doing it to try to protect us from the Virus and relieve the burden on the NHS but surely us oldies are capable of using common sense, I'd rather be at a speedway meeting than being stuck in doors "waiting for God"

Quite. Can't expect those over 70 remaining isolated for goodness how long.

[Pirate Nick]

2 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

Quite. Can't expect those over 70 remaining isolated for goodness how long.

Matt Hancock Today

”We are going to take the powers to make sure that we can quarantine people if they are a risk to public health...... that’s important.”

[iris123]

It is the same as people who are banned from driving. Some stick to the ban some don’t. The thing with this is, it is obviously more evident who is not sticking to it..   

[The Third Man]

What it means is that the government does not expect the virus to go away for four months, that is the end of July

This, along with banning crowds of over 500 people, would mean that speedway cant start until August at the earliest, so someone is going to have to come up with a plan to run a meaningful competition that lasts for 4 months.

I think it is potentially looking bad for speedway for this season as a whole except maybe for a few tracks that can afford to run with fewer than 500 supporters, if the government allows them to because they may not allow medical cover for sporting events

as has already been seen, some foreign riders are already going home before a full travel ban is in place so it will be mostly home based riders who could compete, and would riders come back to Britain for a very short season

I think we may well be looking at a lost year, and the effect of that could be a disaster for the sport

Hopefully this a very worse case scenario and the sport can restart in a couple of months at the worst

 

[HGould]

5 minutes ago, Pirate Nick said:

Matt Hancock Today

”We are going to take the powers to make sure that we can quarantine people if they are a risk to public health...... that’s important.”

They may do that but not this week, next week but at near peak POSSIBLY it's a contingency measure. Government are preparing and filtering out a "worst case scenario" so that when it doesn't happen they can say (a) we handled this better than expected (b) we had contingency in place.

Why are people so gullible!

As for isolating over 70's, are they going to arrest any over 70 who is seen out and about...

16 minutes ago, Pirate Nick said:

Found on Twitter from Professor Ian Donald.

1. The govt strategy on #Coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.

2. This all assumes I'm correct in what I think the govt are doing and why. I could be wrong - and wouldn't be surprised. But it looks to me like. . .

3. A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it. 

There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.

4. The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection

5. That's herd immunity.
Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.

6. That balance is the big risk.

All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.

7.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.

8. Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.

9. The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable

10. After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.

11. BUT a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will

12. The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.

13. Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise.  That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable

14. As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.

15. This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for #BorisJohnson to have had any role in developing.

good assessment when you read it without prejudice and blind panic some seem to have fallen for. 

[steve roberts]

7 minutes ago, Pirate Nick said:

Matt Hancock Today

”We are going to take the powers to make sure that we can quarantine people if they are a risk to public health...... that’s important.”

Will people be expected to prove their age if 'caught out and about'?

[steve roberts]

2 minutes ago, HGould said:

They may do that but not this week, next week but at near peak POSSIBLY it's a contingency measure. Government are preparing and filtering out a "worst case scenario" so that when it doesn't happen they can say (a) we handled this better than expected (b) we had contingency in place.

Why are people so gullible!

As for isolating over 70's, are they going to arrest any over 70 who is seen out and about...

good assessment when you read it without prejudice and blind panic some seem to have fallen for. 

Exactly and how will it be administered?

Edited March 15, 2020 by steve roberts

[HGould]

9 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

Exactly and how will it be administered?

Too many read a headline and not the detail behind it.

Hancock HAS said it is a measure that will be bought in.

He has also said...it WILL be bought in if and when required at a time when it will have most impact.

Politics (nothing to do with Party Politics) prepare people for the worst case scenario. In so doing you look good when you don't have to use that scenario but can also say you have a contingency in place. 

Also some over 70's and 80's will no doubt voluntarily listen to it now, they may not isolate but what they may do is go out once a week instead of 4 or 5 times.

It suits the doom mongers to spread doom.  Sells papers, empties shelves.

The reality is somewhere in between. 

 

[The Third Man]

27 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

Exactly and how will it be administered?

I don't think that's the point, it shows that the government still expects it to be here until the end of July

[cityrebel]

The health of the nation is far more important than a few speedway meetings. When this crisis is over, the sport will have to regroup and start again.

[stewmac]

2 hours ago, hammer1969 said:

That would be discrimination, a lot of us oldies are fitter and take more care with our health  than youngsters. I daresay they would be doing it to try to protect us from the Virus and relieve the burden on the NHS but surely us oldies are capable of using common sense, I'd rather be at a speedway meeting than being stuck in doors "waiting for God"

The problem with this type of attitude though is that the more who do as you are suggesting you might, the less effective the strategy will be and therefore the more will become infected, and ultimately die. 

[steve roberts]

1 hour ago, HGould said:

Too many read a headline and not the detail behind it.

Hancock HAS said it is a measure that will be bought in.

He has also said...it WILL be bought in if and when required at a time when it will have most impact.

Politics (nothing to do with Party Politics) prepare people for the worst case scenario. In so doing you look good when you don't have to use that scenario but can also say you have a contingency in place. 

Also some over 70's and 80's will no doubt voluntarily listen to it now, they may not isolate but what they may do is go out once a week instead of 4 or 5 times.

It suits the doom mongers to spread doom.  Sells papers, empties shelves.

The reality is somewhere in between. 

 

Trouble is that is how many people follow the news and the media play on it.

[R87]

Not sure Jye Etheridge is being particularly helpful on Twitter.  Doesn't seem understand why speedway cant run behind closed doors

[lastword]

And are these oldies the same oldies who are expected to care for grand-kids when the government closes the schools?

[wealdstone]

I really do not think many have realised how serious this is. The virus itself is serious enough but the knock on effect on the very structure of society is mind blowing. Starting with panic buying , people losing their jobs etc. You can envisage a society where money is useless and bartering of goods becomes the norm. 

[Starman2006]

3 minutes ago, wealdstone said:

I really do not think many have realised how serious this is. The virus itself is serious enough but the knock on effect on the very structure of society is mind blowing. Starting with panic buying , people losing their jobs etc. You can envisage a society where money is useless and bartering of goods becomes the norm. 

You should join the goverment

[wealdstone]

1 minute ago, Starman2006 said:

You should join the goverment

Probably you have secured your bog roll  supply already

[BWitcher]

1 hour ago, stewmac said:

The problem with this type of attitude though is that the more who do as you are suggesting you might, the less effective the strategy will be and therefore the more will become infected, and ultimately die. 

However, Italy is the country that traditionally 'stays inside' the most at this time of year.

And they have the highest death rate from flu every year..

And the same with Covid-19.