|
Post by PotteringThrough on Apr 8, 2020 17:12:15 GMT
Thanks Northy and Ravey. The total in the end could be shocking. How many of these people who have died from this virus have actually died from it and not something else that would have taken them anyway? I guess the issue here is that someone might have something that would have taken them ... eventually, but has this disease taken them too soon?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 8, 2020 17:13:55 GMT
It's true, when they announce it they say confirmed hospital cases. There's an elderly care home in Liverpool that has had many pass away this week whose numbers haven't been added yet. There was a graph on Sky News last night showing the rise in deaths due to COVID-19. There were actually 2 lines - 1 line showing the deaths in hospitals (ie the numbers we get) and a second line showing the estimated COVID-19 deaths from all sources (I think). The difference was alarming. For example for yesterday's total of 800(ish) it said the actual number was more like 1600 - from the graph it looked like actual deaths due to COVID-19 from all avenues (hospitals, nursing homes, at home) is running at approx 2x the numbers we are being told. Don't know how they know this because surely if someone dies from COVID-19 it shows up in their post mortem so perhaps its a bit of a guess. To be honest I doubt they will do a post mortem on many of them. If an elderly person is in a care home and has not been in the best of health for a while (ie a lot of them) I reckon they'll just put the most obvious cause of death on the certificate. Probably "pneumonia".
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 8, 2020 17:14:17 GMT
Yes 1 in 20 deaths registered that week (20th to 27th March) were Coronavirus related. Although that was on an upward trend from 1 in 100 the week before. 1k died today of CV.
Well that's the last time I update my linkedin profile. Fuck that shit.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Apr 8, 2020 17:16:28 GMT
Crikey, Sunak is a smooth and confident operator. I like him, but too good to be true? So was Tony Blair I said exactly the same mate. Even sounds like Blair. I did a double take when I first heard him speaking. Thought Blair was back. As some have said I hope he turns out less crooked. Seems a decent sort but his background doesn't bode well. Banker.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Apr 8, 2020 17:18:41 GMT
Decent answer RE speculation about the lockdown and lifting it. It’s way to soon and we simply don’t have the data yet to even consider looking at lifting it. The rest of the data this week will inform the review. We have to be patient, exactly why people throwing dates around like Sikora is dangerous, people may well start getting complacent because “ahhh he says we’ve only got 5 days left, won’t matter” etc. Announcing a lockdown is going to end way in advance is just silly. I think the psychology is not straightforward here and I'm not sure I agree with that. If you are running a marathon and shout out 'How long to go mate?' to a marshall and he says 'only 5 miles' you stiffen your fibres and push for the finish line. If instead the Marshall says 'Search me mate, I haven't got a scooby, you'll probably still be running this time next week' you are far more likely to think to yourself 'Fuck this for a game of soldiers, I'm done!'.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Apr 8, 2020 17:22:37 GMT
Yes 1 in 20 deaths registered that week (20th to 27th March) were Coronavirus related. Although that was on an upward trend from 1 in 100 the week before. Must be closer to 1 in 2 now. Very crudely 650k of us die each year in the UK so circa 2k per day. 1k died today of CV. You can argue over how long some people would have gone on for but there seems little doubt this blasted virus is now killing us on an industrial scale. I wasn't trying to show otherwise mate. I was simply adding to the stats Bayern was quoting. I appreciate the figures will have grown exponentially since that date.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Apr 8, 2020 17:28:35 GMT
Decent answer RE speculation about the lockdown and lifting it. It’s way to soon and we simply don’t have the data yet to even consider looking at lifting it. The rest of the data this week will inform the review. We have to be patient, exactly why people throwing dates around like Sikora is dangerous, people may well start getting complacent because “ahhh he says we’ve only got 5 days left, won’t matter” etc. Announcing a lockdown is going to end way in advance is just silly. I think the psychology is not straightforward here and I'm not sure I agree with that. If you are running a marathon and shout out 'How long to go mate?' to a marshall and he says 'only 5 miles' you stiffen your fibres and push for the finish line. If instead the Marshall says 'Search me mate, I haven't got a scooby, you'll probably still be running this time next week' you are far more likely to think to yourself 'Stuff it, I'm packing it in'. On the other hand, you had advice earlier in this Pandemic to avoid pubs, then on the day they finally closed them, despite a week of pleading to avoid them, and trusting people to do the right thing, there was a huge surge in people going for “one last pint”. I think plenty would make the argument “what is the difference me being out now or 24/48 hours from now guv?” Either way, they won’t speculate not at this stage and their answers today regarding it were on the money for me. I’m quite cynical when it comes to human behaviour and following instructions and that probably reflects in my view 😂
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Apr 8, 2020 17:38:09 GMT
Blair, Thatcher & Churchill all very divisive all delivered some significant and much needed change but also some horrific results from deliberate policy. Attlee knocks all of them out of the park. Attlee was PM when the NHS was introduced but other than that was a bit of disaster leading to rationing remaining into the 50’s and an economic downturn that carried on until the 70’s. It was no surprise when the public dispensed with his services. History has shown his insistence on nuclear power was significant. Churchill’s peace time term wasn’t that thrilling. At least Attlee changed Britain for the better as did Wilson, Thatcher and Blair. I can’t think of any other PMs since WW2 who have had such a positive effect. Although he had been much maligned, I don’t think Brown was that bad. Attlee introduced the modern social welfare system against a backdrop of a country bankrupt after a decade of depression followed by a world war, it was this bankruptcy that caused the continued rationing. The fact that the British public's weariness of rationing outweighed their appreciation of the NHS demonstrates the fickleness of the voting public.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Apr 8, 2020 17:43:05 GMT
Who was one of the best prime ministers during my lifetime. When you think about it, leaving Blair, Thatcher and Churchill to one side, we have had some pretty poor political leaders in this country. Wilson’s first term was good but in the 70’s it was a different case. Blair, Thatcher & Churchill all very divisive all delivered some significant and much needed change but also some horrific results from deliberate policy. Attlee knocks all of them out of the park. Blair abdicated responsibility for the economy letting Brown allow the banks to run riot with lending to people who couldn't afford to pay back, and destroy final salary pension schemes. Fortunately unlike Blair, Brown decided against joining the Euro, if Blair had had his way we would have adopted the Euro and trapped us in the EU for ever. Blair also took us to war based on the lie of weapons of mass destruction. Thatcher was the most divisive PM in history causing us to riots and huge misery for very many innocent people. The economy needed fixing after the disastrous Labour government, but with a rapier not a bludgeon. People are dying as we write due to exporting UK manufacturing. Thatcher actually signed Maastricht treaty converting the EEC we joined and voted to stay in, into the EU, which gave away our sovereignty to German domination, which ironically Churchill lead the country to successfully fight against. Churchill was a rare character that was needed at a time when with the Commonwealth we stood alone against fascist tyranny. But as a politician he was a bit of a bull in china shop with everything he touched before 1939 and responsible for some serious errors. (and I'm a fan of Churchill) While I'm having a rant, Wilson's first term followed 13 years of Tory "stop-go" economic policy, with a new invention "stagflation". When he devalued the pound and told us "the £ in your pocket" is still worth the same his time was up. It always seems to me that the qualities needed to climb the greasy pole to become a PM, are the ones that make a bad PM. If Johnson can achieve what his hero Churchill did the the country's hour of need and galvanise government and get things done, he could actually be a rare "good" PM. Wouldn't that be a surprise?
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Apr 8, 2020 17:44:51 GMT
Blair, Thatcher & Churchill all very divisive all delivered some significant and much needed change but also some horrific results from deliberate policy. Attlee knocks all of them out of the park. Blair abdicated responsibility for the economy letting Brown allow the banks to run riot with lending to people who couldn't afford to pay back, and destroy final salary pension schemes. Fortunately unlike Blair, Brown decided against joining the Euro, if Blair had had his way we would have adopted the Euro and trapped us in the EU for ever. Blair also took us to war based on the lie of weapons of mass destruction. Thatcher was the most divisive PM in history causing us to riots and huge misery for very many innocent people. The economy needed fixing after the disastrous Labour government, but with a rapier not a bludgeon. People are dying as we write due to exporting UK manufacturing. Thatcher actually signed Maastricht treaty converting the EEC we joined and voted to stay in, into the EU, which gave away our sovereignty to German domination, which ironically Churchill lead the country to successfully fight against. Churchill was a rare character that was needed at a time when with the Commonwealth we stood alone against fascist tyranny. But as a politician he was a bit of a bull in china shop with everything he touched before 1939 and responsible for some serious errors. (and I'm a fan of Churchill) While I'm having a rant, Wilson's first term followed 13 years of Tory "stop-go" economic policy, with a new invention "stagflation". When he devalued the pound and told us "the £ in your pocket" is still worth the same his time was up. It always seems to me that the qualities needed to climb the greasy pole to become a PM, are the ones that make a bad PM. If Johnson can achieve what his hero Churchill did the the country's hour of need and galvanise government and get things done, he could actually be a rare "good" PM. Wouldn't that be a surprise? Yes
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Apr 8, 2020 17:58:59 GMT
Blair, Thatcher & Churchill all very divisive all delivered some significant and much needed change but also some horrific results from deliberate policy. Attlee knocks all of them out of the park. Blair abdicated responsibility for the economy letting Brown allow the banks to run riot with lending to people who couldn't afford to pay back, and destroy final salary pension schemes. Fortunately unlike Blair, Brown decided against joining the Euro, if Blair had had his way we would have adopted the Euro and trapped us in the EU for ever. Blair also took us to war based on the lie of weapons of mass destruction. Thatcher was the most divisive PM in history causing us to riots and huge misery for very many innocent people. The economy needed fixing after the disastrous Labour government, but with a rapier not a bludgeon. People are dying as we write due to exporting UK manufacturing. Thatcher actually signed Maastricht treaty converting the EEC we joined and voted to stay in, into the EU, which gave away our sovereignty to German domination, which ironically Churchill lead the country to successfully fight against. Churchill was a rare character that was needed at a time when with the Commonwealth we stood alone against fascist tyranny. But as a politician he was a bit of a bull in china shop with everything he touched before 1939 and responsible for some serious errors. (and I'm a fan of Churchill) While I'm having a rant, Wilson's first term followed 13 years of Tory "stop-go" economic policy, with a new invention "stagflation". When he devalued the pound and told us "the £ in your pocket" is still worth the same his time was up. It always seems to me that the qualities needed to climb the greasy pole to become a PM, are the ones that make a bad PM. If Johnson can achieve what his hero Churchill did the the country's hour of need and galvanise government and get things done, he could actually be a rare "good" PM. Wouldn't that be a surprise? thatcher didn't sign the Maastricht treaty, that was John Major, Thatcher was overthrown in 1990, the Maastricht treaty was signed in 1992 ONS state that far more manufacturing jobs were lost under the Blair Brown years than the previous Tory years of Thatcher and Blair
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Apr 8, 2020 18:03:56 GMT
It's very hard not to laugh. It's also enough to make you weep that the world's super powers are running full pelt for a confrontation... fuelled by pandemic, trade wars, nutjob leaders and politics. And we the UK will be broke, isolated and alone. And the alternative is? Joe Biden.... Who's only going straight to the home for the elderly as he's suffering dementia. The other alternative is a communist Sanders.... So yes I agree but Americans have a choice.... A dementia patient, a communist or someone who actually talks to the American public. America was founded by the way on freedom of thought and individual liberties.... You don't like the place? Then fuck off outa the place and go live somewhere more authoritarian.... like China or maybe north Korea 👍 That's a great reply.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Apr 8, 2020 18:09:09 GMT
On the text tv news today: "Many people have Corona without knowing it". And The People Health Agency and Anders Tegnell today on TV declared 9 out of 10 people with Corona symptoms have NO SYMPTOMS. Or at least minor symptoms. And on the radio earlier he said to find out who's going to have a severe version of it depends on the medical history of the person in question, does he/she take long to recover from the flu usually, then it might be severe to catch Corona. (B$#$$&y H@#&!! I always get 39.5-41.2°C fever for 2 weeks, then less fever the last third week when having a flu and I very easily get pnemonia.) Those 9 out of 10 zero or minimal symptoms may be correct. Estranged shared the figures on here whereby it is believed about 2 million people in the UK have had it already. The schools were open until March and apparently most children don't notice it at all. You could imagine it running through a school in London say and no one except for perhaps a couple of teachers even noticing. Interesting question is: Is it possible the individual with mild or no symptoms can transmit the virus? From what I've heard and read now, they can.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Apr 8, 2020 18:13:25 GMT
On the text tv news today: "Many people have Corona without knowing it". And The People Health Agency and Anders Tegnell today on TV declared 9 out of 10 people with Corona symptoms have NO SYMPTOMS. Or at least minor symptoms. And on the radio earlier he said to find out who's going to have a severe version of it depends on the medical history of the person in question, does he/she take long to recover from the flu usually, then it might be severe to catch Corona. (B$#$$&y H@#&!! I always get 39.5-41.2°C fever for 2 weeks, then less fever the last third week when having a flu and I very easily get pnemonia.) 9 out of 10?! Massive numbers. Once that antibody test is out, it will be a game chamger. Definitely! Next week?
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 8, 2020 18:15:08 GMT
Death toll doubling every 4 days.
This time last week it was doubling every three days, so the increase is reducing.
However, in another four days we could be seeing 1800 folk passing away.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 18:29:30 GMT
I'm perfectly calm about it thanks. I just think an intense two week lockdown would do a lot more good than harm and is a sensible and necessary measure to help take the strain off the front line healthcare workers and save lives. if I'd seen that Clem had liked your initial post I wouldn't have done so myself! You could have a very serious problem, I would go and take a very long shower - I don't think that our "likes" are two meters apart .....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 18:33:39 GMT
Crikey, Sunak is a smooth and confident operator. I like him, but too good to be true? He seems to be a sort of hybrid Blair/SJW ?
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Apr 8, 2020 18:39:15 GMT
Don’t know if it’s been discussed further back but what we make of Boris being in intensive care but apparently in good spirits?
Is he in there because of who he is and he’s been placed in there just in case his condition does worsen? Is he in there because he is gravely ill and we’re, probably understandably, being told he’s in good spirits?
Personally fail to see how anyone in ICU can also be in good spirits but I know naff all about medical care.
EDIT: Said to be improving now according to latest reports.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 8, 2020 18:40:36 GMT
I think the psychology is not straightforward here and I'm not sure I agree with that. If you are running a marathon and shout out 'How long to go mate?' to a marshall and he says 'only 5 miles' you stiffen your fibres and push for the finish line. If instead the Marshall says 'Search me mate, I haven't got a scooby, you'll probably still be running this time next week' you are far more likely to think to yourself 'Stuff it, I'm packing it in'. On the other hand, you had advice earlier in this Pandemic to avoid pubs, then on the day they finally closed them, despite a week of pleading to avoid them, and trusting people to do the right thing, there was a huge surge in people going for “one last pint”. I think plenty would make the argument “what is the difference me being out now or 24/48 hours from now guv?” Either way, they won’t speculate not at this stage and their answers today regarding it were on the money for me. I’m quite cynical when it comes to human behaviour and following instructions and that probably reflects in my view 😂 I agree with this. The lock down will be phased out like it was phased in. They won't change anything by the this weekend. Commit to another 3 weeks and even after that I'd be happy with another 3. Certain sectors might see a relax after that but without a vaccine or antibody test we'll still be social distancing for some time.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 8, 2020 18:43:18 GMT
Death toll doubling every 4 days. This time last week it was doubling every three days, so the increase is reducing. However, in another four days we could be seeing 1800 folk passing away. You would have to assume (dangerous I know) that someone somewhere in the bowels of government has a graph of projected mortality over the next few weeks that actuals are being plotted against. If the actuals are broadly against the forecast then we are 'on plan' and as such the current lockdown arrangements will simply be rolled over every three weeks until the numbers are down to an acceptable level. If they tighten up the lockdown then it would indicate that mortality is outstripping the forecast and the plan has gone to ratshit.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Apr 8, 2020 18:46:52 GMT
On the other hand, you had advice earlier in this Pandemic to avoid pubs, then on the day they finally closed them, despite a week of pleading to avoid them, and trusting people to do the right thing, there was a huge surge in people going for “one last pint”. I think plenty would make the argument “what is the difference me being out now or 24/48 hours from now guv?” Either way, they won’t speculate not at this stage and their answers today regarding it were on the money for me. I’m quite cynical when it comes to human behaviour and following instructions and that probably reflects in my view 😂 I agree with this. The lock down will be phased out like it was phased in. They won't change anything by the this weekend. Commit to another 3 weeks and even after that I'd be happy with another 3. Certain sectors might see a relax after that but without a vaccine or antibody test we'll still be social distancing for some time. It’s in every model I’ve seen, that there will need to be turning off and on of different measures depending on data and emergence of any secondary outbreaks which need to be dealt with in the South Korean way, directed testing, social distancing etc. That’s exactly what this lockdown buys us. I can’r believe some people think it will all just “go away”. Jenny Harries said 6 months before we approached anything like normality, which was misconstrued as 6 months on lockdown, which no one has suggested. But she was adamant it would not be and I quote “a sudden return to a normal way of living” I do appreciate the need for positive messaging, but it should never be done for the sake of it. People deserve answers backed up with evidence not mollycoddling without it that makes them feel good but then devastated when it doesn’t occur.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Apr 8, 2020 18:48:04 GMT
Yes 1 in 20 deaths registered that week (20th to 27th March) were Coronavirus related. Although that was on an upward trend from 1 in 100 the week before. Must be closer to 1 in 2 now. Very crudely 650k of us die each year in the UK so circa 2k per day. 1k died today of CV. You can argue over how long some people would have gone on for but there seems little doubt this blasted virus is now killing us on an industrial scale. Indeed it's acting a bit like a eerrrrmmmmm. biological weapon is it not
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Apr 8, 2020 18:58:50 GMT
Death toll doubling every 4 days. This time last week it was doubling every three days, so the increase is reducing. However, in another four days we could be seeing 1800 folk passing away. You would have to assume (dangerous I know) that someone somewhere in the bowels of government has a graph of projected mortality over the next few weeks that actuals are being plotted against. If the actuals are broadly against the forecast then we are 'on plan' and as such the current lockdown arrangements will simply be rolled over every three weeks until the numbers are down to an acceptable level. If they tighten up the lockdown then it would indicate that mortality is outstripping the forecast and the plan has gone to ratshit. Was thinking about this earlier. They predicted our peak would come at the Easter weekend and now the figures are going up to what you’d think/hope are the peak level. It wouldn’t surprise me if the figures are being massaged in an upward trend to show they “knew what they were talking about” all along and trust in them grows. Of course it might not be anything like that at all and it’s just what is actually happening.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Apr 8, 2020 19:03:19 GMT
Decent answer RE speculation about the lockdown and lifting it. It’s way to soon and we simply don’t have the data yet to even consider looking at lifting it. The rest of the data this week will inform the review. We have to be patient, exactly why people throwing dates around like Sikora is dangerous, people may well start getting complacent because “ahhh he says we’ve only got 5 days left, won’t matter” etc. Announcing a lockdown is going to end way in advance is just silly. I think the psychology is not straightforward here and I'm not sure I agree with that. If you are running a marathon and shout out 'How long to go mate?' to a marshall and he says 'only 5 miles' you stiffen your fibres and push for the finish line. If instead the Marshall says 'Search me mate, I haven't got a scooby, you'll probably still be running this time next week' you are far more likely to think to yourself 'Fuck this for a game of soldiers, I'm done!'. But you already know in general how long a marathon is. If you’re partaking in one of those who can run the furthest ultra races, not much point asking how much longer have I to go...
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Apr 8, 2020 19:11:05 GMT
I agree with this. The lock down will be phased out like it was phased in. They won't change anything by the this weekend. Commit to another 3 weeks and even after that I'd be happy with another 3. Certain sectors might see a relax after that but without a vaccine or antibody test we'll still be social distancing for some time. It’s in every model I’ve seen, that there will need to be turning off and on of different measures depending on data and emergence of any secondary outbreaks which need to be dealt with in the South Korean way, directed testing, social distancing etc. That’s exactly what this lockdown buys us. I can’r believe some people think it will all just “go away”. Jenny Harries said 6 months before we approached anything like normality, which was misconstrued as 6 months on lockdown, which no one has suggested. But she was adamant it would not be and I quote “a sudden return to a normal way of living” I do appreciate the need for positive messaging, but it should never be done for the sake of it. People deserve answers backed up with evidence not mollycoddling without it that makes them feel good but then devastated when it doesn’t occur. Mate thanks very much for your input on this thread it is really appreciated by most I think. Unfortunately you are banging your head against a wall with some. But keep it coming nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 19:53:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Apr 8, 2020 20:20:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Apr 8, 2020 20:32:25 GMT
2 things that we should be aware that are food for thought 1. There were less deaths this week in the UK than there was was last year for the corresponding week 2. A very high proportion of all deaths in this week have been categorised as Covid-19 Form that draw your own conclusions My own take is: The testing and classification of Covid-19 is hugely flawed and shows greater numbers of those who test positive for COVID-19 vs those whose cause of death was Covid-19. I think those in power need to be a bit more...a lot more responsible with this. I'm not and expert but looking at the figures and the official statements it's not adding up. Case in point...the weekly death rate has not increased and is actually less than the five year average in wk 13. The deaths attributed to pneumonia and flu are decreasing while the deaths for Covid-19 are increasing. The Office for National Statistics has categorically stated that regardless of the actual cause of death....IF Covid-19 was test positive either before death or after, that death has to be listed as a Covid-19 death...even if the patient didn't die of Covid-19. Further, if any combination or Pneumonia or Flu and Covid-19 were found...then Covid-19 is the cause... irrespective. Example: Eddie Large...he actually died of Heart Disease and died WITH Coronavirus not DUE TO Coronavirus yet still classed in the Covid-19 stats and hammered in to us by the news. It makes me wonder how many of these types of cases there are being as we all have Coronavirus RNA in our DNA and the RT-PCR machine is NOT accurate enough. it's inventor even stated to not use his machine to test for a specific strain of Coronavirus. This is a trend that is not only in the UK but across the board. My question is this...does this practice not give a false measure of the severity of the pandemic? Especially given the fact it was downgraded from HCID? I'm not saying this isn't serious, and this definitely presents a serious health danger but surely the number just don't add up. Why would there such a dramatic drop in the death rate, if you take Covid-19 out of the equation. People have suddenly stopped dying of flu and pneumonia for example which is a common cause of death in all records for the last 100 years. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 8, 2020 20:32:53 GMT
I agree with this. The lock down will be phased out like it was phased in. They won't change anything by the this weekend. Commit to another 3 weeks and even after that I'd be happy with another 3. Certain sectors might see a relax after that but without a vaccine or antibody test we'll still be social distancing for some time. It’s in every model I’ve seen, that there will need to be turning off and on of different measures depending on data and emergence of any secondary outbreaks which need to be dealt with in the South Korean way, directed testing, social distancing etc. That’s exactly what this lockdown buys us. I can’r believe some people think it will all just “go away”. Jenny Harries said 6 months before we approached anything like normality, which was misconstrued as 6 months on lockdown, which no one has suggested. But she was adamant it would not be and I quote “a sudden return to a normal way of living” I do appreciate the need for positive messaging, but it should never be done for the sake of it. People deserve answers backed up with evidence not mollycoddling without it that makes them feel good but then devastated when it doesn’t occur. I'm not a big fan at the best of times but I do think the media are being a little irresponsible. This relentless 'what about Germany' 'you promised 10,000 tests a day and you've only done 9,250' 'when will the lock down end' just puts unhelpful narratives in the public's mind.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Apr 8, 2020 20:41:06 GMT
It’s in every model I’ve seen, that there will need to be turning off and on of different measures depending on data and emergence of any secondary outbreaks which need to be dealt with in the South Korean way, directed testing, social distancing etc. That’s exactly what this lockdown buys us. I can’r believe some people think it will all just “go away”. Jenny Harries said 6 months before we approached anything like normality, which was misconstrued as 6 months on lockdown, which no one has suggested. But she was adamant it would not be and I quote “a sudden return to a normal way of living” I do appreciate the need for positive messaging, but it should never be done for the sake of it. People deserve answers backed up with evidence not mollycoddling without it that makes them feel good but then devastated when it doesn’t occur. I'm not a big fan at the best of times but I do think the media are being a little irresponsible. This relentless 'what about Germany' 'you promised 10,000 tests a day and you've only done 9,250' 'when will the lock down end' just puts unhelpful narratives in the public's mind. I agree. And testing has healed anyone.
|
|