A Political Thread

[Amiga500]

Pathetic

Well considered response.

 

[Amiga500]

1. No implication about it, I'm outright stating that they CAN. Schools, when they clamp down on this, are capable of checking and enforcing, at home, it depends on how much attention the parents are paying, especially when the kids are outside without necessarily having a parent around. Schools can be much more consistent.

But hands are the main transmission medium for adults.

Kids hug, they wrestle, they mess around.

Applying what works for adults to kids and expecting the same response is not without massive risk.

 

[McTallshort]

Well considered response.

Well you are. Childish little idiot.

 

[ncurd]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/uk-to-ban-mass-gatherings-in-coronavirus-u-turn

UK finally acts, after... the UK completely ignores Boris and does the right thing regardless.

Now that's leadership!

I know guardian has categorised it as a U-Turn and it might well be. But banning mass gatherings was always part of the plan just supposedly not to start on Thursday. We'll probably never really know.

 

[Which Tyler]

But hands are the main transmission medium for adults.

Kids hug, they wrestle, they mess around.

Applying what works for adults to kids and expecting the same response is not without massive risk.

Hands are also the main transmission medium for kids.
The virus isn't absorbed through the skin, but through mucus membranes (mouth, nose, eyes, arse) - by far the most common thing for anyone, regardless of age, to touch a mucus membrane with, is their hands.

Kids are more likely to cough / sneeze into each others face / air space - but it's still tranmission via hands that outweighs everything else combined.

You then need tolook at how the virus can get onto the hands, and prevent it being picked up there - commonly covering your mouth with your hands to yawn / cough / sneeze - which kids are less likely to do; but also picking it up from surfaces - either commonly touched surfaces by other people's hands, or below where someone has coughed / sneezed without "catch it, kill it bin it" - these ALL still apply to kids.

In short, the most likely part of a kid to come into contact with the virus, is their hands. the most likely thing to come into contact with a kid's mucus membrane, is their hand.

 

[Reiser99]

WHO questioning the UK's plan.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/hea...F5FTHtLI1uh_cSMavr--sglkidVej-E8Mk8PUhjWx_l5I

Basically there is no evidence to say it will work and it's based mainly down to computer simulations and theories, which is based on the assumption that the virus does what you expect it to (because viruses always do what they are told).

I get the logic that if they impose a strict quarantine then when it's lifted people will get sick again who weren't exposed before. However, surely waves of the virus is safer than hoping an entire population will develop herd immunity, when there is little factual evidence and data to support it. Britain is basically going win big or lose hard. Difference is that if you lose it's people's lives.

 

[Amiga500]

Well you are. Childish little idiot.

I was going to insult your intelligence, but realised that'd be a little unfair.

So instead I'm going to ask what particular part of the response did you have trouble with?

1. Asking for evidence of your assertion that kids cannot spread COVID-19?
2. Agreeing that schools would have to shut for months and not weeks?
3. Noting that for someone to be worried about their livelihood, they would need to be alive?
4. Suggesting that there are means of looking after the children of healthcare (or other critical industry) workers that can enable shutting of schools?


If there are too many big words in there, let me know and I'll break out the crayons for you. No, no... I'm not going down that route.

 

[Amiga500]

WHO questioning the UK's plan.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/hea...F5FTHtLI1uh_cSMavr--sglkidVej-E8Mk8PUhjWx_l5I

Basically there is no evidence to say it will work and it's based mainly down to computer simulations and theories, which is based on the assumption that the virus does what you expect it to (because viruses always do what they are told).

I get the logic that if they impose a strict quarantine then when it's lifted people will get sick again who weren't exposed before. However, surely waves of the virus is safer than hoping an entire population will develop herd immunity, when there is little factual evidence and data to support it. Britain is basically going win big or lose hard. Difference is that if you lose it's people's lives.

Herd immunity is flat earth science as far as dealing with an novel outbreak is concerned.

After the virus sweeps through, then yes, you do have population immunity (for this particular strain of Coronavirus).

However there is the pesky matter of a >5% mortality rate as health services are completely overwhelmed (as per worst affected regions of Italy or Wuhan in China).

So, whats 5% of the UK's population again?


Of course, the same herd immunity could be provided by means of a vaccine, indeed that is the usual interpretation of what "herd immunity" means. Of course, from here to there is 18+ months. It would seem that the govt are unwilling to take the economic hit of that and instead are settling for sending a few million people off this mortal coil instead. I suppose its one way for Boris to reduce NHS waiting lists.

 

[Amiga500]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...-herd-immunity-patrick-vallance-a4386476.html

Asked why the UK has delayed shutting down schools, Sir Patrick said a closure now would see educational establishments shut down for "many months".

He said it is not yet clear if any children have transmitted the illness and that most experience only mild Covid-19 symptoms.
He added: "Children, of course, aren't going to separate for long periods, they are going to go and do other things together.

"And they may go and stay with grandma, one of those in the most vulnerable group."

He told LBC radio that the pandemic would "go on for months" rather than weeks.

Starting with the last sentence first and working upward.

1. Of course, 18 months minimum, 36 months maximum
2. Sending children to their grandparents would be incredibly irresponsible of the parents.
3. Letting children mix would also be incredibly irresponsible of the parents.
4. The line about not being clear if children had transmitted the illness or not is just stupid. Utterly stupid. It would be the first virus in history that is happy to spread off a bat, through a reptile and into a human, but for some reason is not willing to spread off a juvenile human.

Points 2 & 3 are valid and of serious concern. After all, the country did just elect Boris and did vote for Brexit. Stupidity is not in short supply. However, since its likely the stupid ones that would be limited to this behaviour, then its just candidates for the Darwin awards.


Of more pertinent concern is if things shut down for (say) 12 months, how do parents make ends meet? Can the government really impose a mortgage holiday of (say) 12 months upon lenders? They obviously can pause rates for businesses. BoE interest rates are so low right now that borrowing off the BoE would essentially be free, perhaps the govt could cover the interest accrued. While its probably possible, the logistics of that are a bit of a nightmare.

I'd still rather walk that path and endure the logistics nightmare than walk the other and be where Italy is (if its not already too late for us).

 

[Leinster Fan]

Is there any hard scientific evidence backing up the herd immunity approach, or is it just a made up reason for Boris and co to avoid taking the economic hit needed?

I don't believe in arguing with experts but I find it very hard to believe that the medical advisers in the UK have come to a conclusion that's so drastically different from more or less every other country on how to deal with this.

Right now the UK government is taking a massive gamble on the lives of their population and Ireland should really suspend flights there as long as their approach remains so drastically out of step with the rest of the world.

Edit: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51892402

So as it turns out there are an awful lot of people who do know what they're talking about it who think the UK approach is bull***t. Like I said, we need to stop travel if we want to contain this because it's clear the UK isn't willing to.

 

[Al Bangor]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51846923

From tweeting that it was not as dangerous as the flu and that the Democrats were using it as fake news and America was fully prepared and numbers of cases low to now travel ban from Europe (26 countries) but not including the UK.

Trump and his hoarde of igonorant Trumpanzees. As an American I am embarrassed and ashamed. I'm an Independent and didn't vote for him. And knowing that helps me get through each day.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Totally Legitimate question asked by a reporter and turned round as a "nasty" question and it wasn't me and I didn't know anything about it?

 

[ncurd]

Is there any hard scientific evidence backing up the herd immunity approach
.

Loads, ignore Amiga's nonsense about vaccines it's got sod all to do with it apart from that's how we normally accomplish it as you don't actually infect people with something like full blown polio. All herd immunity is that people who have had the disease are terrible carriers for it once a certain amount of population has had (I've seen varying figures) the disease instead of increasing rates decreases and eventually becomes virtually zero. Meaning some people never actually get it.

Where it comes in with its importance in terms of vaccines is something like Mumps where some people for whatever reasons can't have vaccines are protected because nobody round them can be carriers. Part of the reason of increases in Measles and Mumps in this country is because of downright evil misinformation on the internet about the safety of vaccines.

There is an assumption here that you can become immune through having the disease. Of which there is little hard evidence either way on COVID-19 but plenty for other Coronaviruses.


Should note the UK hasn't really come to a different conclusion than other nations I don't think any country genuinely believes they'll stop this. A vaccine is still by most estimates 12-18 months away by which time most of this will have definitely played out. The UK's (and Germany's) in approach is rate of infections they believe they can handle at its peak.


It should be also noted that many social distancing plans people were/are calling for have already been put in place and many are choosing to go further in terms of visiting families and loved ones. I think we can rightly expect the government was banking on that happening to some extent anyway.

 

[ncurd]

So as it turns out there are an awful lot of people who do know what they're talking about it who think the UK approach is bull***t. Like I said, we need to stop travel if we want to contain this because it's clear the UK isn't willing to.

I'm not going to say those people aren't intelligent or even know somewhat knowledgeable in the area. However here's what's burried massively in the lead.

The group, specialising in a range of disciplines, ranging from mathematics to genetics, though no leading experts in the science of the spread of diseases,

I think that second sentence is really important when deciding how much stock to take on that.

 

[McTallshort]

I was going to insult your intelligence, but realised that'd be a little unfair.

So instead I'm going to ask what particular part of the response did you have trouble with?

1. Asking for evidence of your assertion that kids cannot spread COVID-19?
2. Agreeing that schools would have to shut for months and not weeks?
3. Noting that for someone to be worried about their livelihood, they would need to be alive?
4. Suggesting that there are means of looking after the children of healthcare (or other critical industry) workers that can enable shutting of schools?


If there are too many big words in there, let me know and I'll break out the crayons for you. No, no... I'm not going down that route.

Again childish little idiot. Most serious problem we have faced in at least a generation and you are behaving like it's a debate on Brexit. Grow the **** up.

 

[Reiser99]

Government backtracking a bit on the herd immunity by saying it is not government policy even though they made such a big deal out of it. Matt Hancock (on Andrew Marr Show) just basically saying the government will do the right thing at the right time and gave examples of things it could do. It just doesn't inspire confidence.

I get the concept of what they are trying to do, but it still feels risky and that the government is more reactive than proactive.

 

[Which Tyler]

1. Is there any hard scientific evidence backing up the herd immunity approach, or is it just a made up reason for Boris and co to avoid taking the economic hit needed?

2. I don't believe in arguing with experts but I find it very hard to believe that the medical advisers in the UK have come to a conclusion that's so drastically different from more or less every other country on how to deal with this.

3. Right now the UK government is taking a massive gamble on the lives of their population and Ireland should really suspend flights there as long as their approach remains so drastically out of step with the rest of the world.

1. Tonnes - as Ncurd says; it's a phrase usually associated with vaccines; because that's the usual way of acheiving it (though pox parties used to be a thing - which partly acheived a more local form of herd immunity)

2. I don't think we (as a country) HAVE come to a different conclusion, just a different level of acceptable damage.

3. Yep, an absolutley huge gamble, with millions of lives at stake. Quite honestly though, stopping air travel isn't going to make any real difference to the UK now - it's too late; the stage we're at now, it's already in the population in enough numbers for local transimission. Grounding travel from worse hit areas would make a slight difference, but probably insignificant. Grounding travel to less hard hit areas is to save them from us, not the other way around.


The gamble the UK seems to be taking, is to desire a shorter, but higher peak to the curves I'm sure we've all seen - gambling that the virus will behave in exactly the way we hope it will; and that the population will respond the way we hope they will; with a willingness to sacrifice the number of lives that that model suggests is likely.

Watching the C4 programme on it Saturday night; it seems that their reasoning is that they simply don't trust the British public (which cynicism is fair enough) to do the right thing for a prolonged period of time - so they hope that when they apply draconian measures, so they want to minimise the time spent at the peak. The trouble with this, is that it 100% will lead to the overwhelming of the NHS (as will a flattened curve btw) - it's that they seem to be willing to overwhelm the NHS for 3-4 months to the tune of a million per month (most of whom will drown from the fluid in their lungs); rather than spreading it over 16 months or so, but overwhelmed to the tune of a few thousand a month. In the mean time, they talk a good game about flattening the curve, but are refuse to take the measures that will see a flattening of the curve (closing gatherings, pubs and clubs).


The government's fear is that COVID19 will see a second spike around October / November; and thus they want to have acheived herd immunity by then - the theory being that flu is seasonal, and therefore so will this be. But this isn't the 'flu, and being summer doesn't seem to be flattening the curves that much in places like Australia. Though there is a good point that seasonal flu will still exist, so let's free up NHS serices by the time that starts up in October. When we get those draconian measure put in place is probably when the estimates say that 60% coverage (thought to be enough for herd immunity) is inevitable. There is good cause to thing that herd immunity rate will be something like 70% (see below) based on the science; which suggests that the infection rate per person is 2-3 - whilst something like measles is 12-18, meaning that 95% need to be immune in order to acheive herd immunity - we had herd immunity before Wakefield's immorality, and now have pockets where it's been lost.
The other factor for the government appears to be economics presumably, by delaying draconian actions, they hope the economy will continue for longer; and having a shorter peak, the economy will start recovering sooner, giving us a head-start in the post-pandemic world. Weighed against that is that we'll be recovering from a higher death toll, and the economic and psychologic scars of that. That death toll will still mostly be in the retired population, which in terms of cold logic, would be an economic plus; but tory party negative. But not to the levels seen elsewhere; as the NHS will be swamped; so those that should recover, will be left to die.
To achieve 60% immunity, we need 60+% infection rate within the total population (some won't gain immunity having recovered from infection) - you also need to overshoot in case A] your modelling is wrong; and B] when you average it over a population, you'll get pockets which drop below that level - see measles since Wakefield's anti-science fear-mongering. So call it 70%.
Our model WANTS 70% of the population (67M) infected and recovered, before the weather turns in October. Recovery seems to be about 4-6 weeks, so we need 47 million people to have been infected by mid-July. 4.7% (2.2M) of those will need intubation and a respirator to breath for them, another 13.8% (6.47M) will need hospitalisation. Now beds can be re-used over that 5.5 month period (4 months + 6 weeks); so each bed can take 4-6 people. We currently have 167,000 hospital beds of all sorts (NHS and private), NHS occupancy rates are somewhere around 90% (I can't find figures for private beds). For inensive care (intubation and respirator) we have less than 4,000 beds. To be optimistic, let's say that each bed can take 6 people in the required time - so that means we can (currently) look after 24,000 of the 2.2M intensive care people; and 0.98M of the 6.47M who need hospitalisation.
Now, we CAN increase the number of beds, and even of ICU beds by throwing money at it - converting hotels to hospitals; buying specialist eqipment etc. We MIGHT be able to provide enough beds for the hospitalisation category; but ICU?... There are 730k hotel rooms in the UK - if they are all requisitioned, and all take 6 patients, we're up by another 4.38M beds, out of the 8.6M needed - so all those hotel rooms would need to double up (which leaves the NHS beds free to take their current load). Equally, money can only take you so far in terms of staffing, which we won't have time to train, so will have to import. We'll have to import knackered, demoralised staff from China, Italy, Iran - assuming they can spare them by then (equally, once we've acheived herd immunity, we can export staff). That all looks possible. To do this, would require the NHS to increase in size, from looking after 125,000 beds to looking after 1.58M beds (current NHS + 2 per hospital room).
Taking that 70% figure: Assuming we had the capacity to convert all those hospital bed, buy all the equipment and import all the staff, then our death toll should remain at around 0.5M for a non-overwhelmed health service. Assuming we can do none of that; and the NHS remains the size it is; then the death toll will be somewhere around 5 Million people (possibly a lot more). The reality will be somewhere in between. Of course, get the timing of the draconian measures wrong, and we may "only" infect 55% of the population, and not acheive herd immunity; or infect 85% of the population; bringing the beds needed (and death toll) ever higher. Or we may have it wrong as to what percentage of the population needs exposure to create herd immunity. Or it may mutate and become less lethal (highly likely to happen, but reasonably random as to when); or it may be the immunity is only conferred temporarily, or that the virus will mutate and side-step current immunity - these are all gambles.
Of course, the matsh assumes a flat curve; not bell - reality will be way more complicated.



Other governments (and WHO recommend) are taking measures to flatten the curves, so that the peak is shallower, but last longer (18 months - by which time, even if they haven't acheived herd immunity, a vaccine MAY be available - there already seems to be some promise there, but extremely tentative at this stage).
Those same maths applied to the UK above would mean that each hospital bed would take 18 patients, not 6. The overall financial cost will be the same, but spread over 18 months, not 6. The numbers infected at any one time remain low enough that there are always hospital beds, equipment, and staff to care for them - keeping the death toll at or around the 1% figure. They can also be more reactive to the facts on the ground; as they're dealing with a shallower curve. It doesn't really matter with that model, if they can slow progression enough to take 24 months, or long enough for a vaccine to be produced, and confer immunity with 0 extra deaths from that point - the point is that their health services are much less likely to become overwhelmed - which can easily mean an order of magnitude on the death toll.


In a nut shell, our government seems to be saying "We can't stop this thing" - which is correct. "We can't apply severe measures for long enough" - sadly, probably correct. "So let's get it over and done with, in as managed a way as we can" - which means more-or-less unchecked, until we're further along the exponential curves. "Sadly, some of us will die" - which could mean 10 times as many as if different decisions were made.
The hope is that we emerge out of the other side of this a good year or so before the rest of the world, and start rebuilding (with a younger demographic) sooner.

Equally, stressing social distancing, and hygeine issues isn't "nothing" - it may even have been enough for the plan to work and spread over the desired time frame.

For the record - the more I think about it, the more sympathy I have for the governments position - in terms of cold, hard calculation. It may also be a case that it's already too late for other options to actually work, which may well explain Wednesday's delay.

 

[Reiser99]

1. Tonnes - as Ncurd says; it's a phrase usually associated with vaccines; because that's the usual way of acheiving it (though pox parties used to be a thing - which partly acheived a more local form of herd immunity)

2. I don't think we (as a country) HAVE come to a different conclusion, just a different level of acceptable damage.

3. Yep, an absolutley huge gamble, with millions of lives at stake. Quite honestly though, stopping air travel isn't going to make any real difference to the UK now - it's too late; the stage we're at now, it's already in the population in enough numbers for local transimission. Grounding travel from worse hit areas would make a slight difference, but probably insignificant. Grounding travel to less hard hit areas is to save them from us, not the other way around.


The gamble the UK seems to be taking, is to desire a shorter, but higher peak to the curves I'm sure we've all seen - gambling that the virus will behave in exactly the way we hope it will; and that the population will respond the way we hope they will; with a willingness to sacrifice the number of lives that that model suggests is likely.

Watching the C4 programme on it Saturday night; it seems that their reasoning is that they simply don't trust the British public (which cynicism is fair enough) to do the right thing for a prolonged period of time - so they hope that when they apply draconian measures, so they want to minimise the time spent at the peak. The trouble with this, is that it 100% will lead to the overwhelming of the NHS (as will a flattened curve btw) - it's that they seem to be willing to overwhelm the NHS for 3-4 months to the tune of a million per month (most of whom will drown from the fluid in their lungs); rather than spreading it over 16 months or so, but overwhelmed to the tune of a few thousand a month. In the mean time, they talk a good game about flattening the curve, but are refuse to take the measures that will see a flattening of the curve (closing gatherings, pubs and clubs).


The government's fear is that COVID19 will see a second spike around October / November; and thus they want to have acheived herd immunity by then - the theory being that flu is seasonal, and therefore so will this be. But this isn't the 'flu, and being summer doesn't seem to be flattening the curves that much in places like Australia. Though there is a good point that seasonal flu will still exist, so let's free up NHS serices by the time that starts up in October. When we get those draconian measure put in place is probably when the estimates say that 60% coverage (thought to be enough for herd immunity) is inevitable. There is good cause to thing that herd immunity rate will be something like 70% (see below) based on the science; which suggests that the infection rate per person is 2-3 - whilst something like measles is 12-18, meaning that 95% need to be immune in order to acheive herd immunity - we had herd immunity before Wakefield's immorality, and now have pockets where it's been lost.
The other factor for the government appears to be economics presumably, by delaying draconian actions, they hope the economy will continue for longer; and having a shorter peak, the economy will start recovering sooner, giving us a head-start in the post-pandemic world. Weighed against that is that we'll be recovering from a higher death toll, and the economic and psychologic scars of that. That death toll will still mostly be in the retired population, which in terms of cold logic, would be an economic plus; but tory party negative. But not to the levels seen elsewhere; as the NHS will be swamped; so those that should recover, will be left to die.
To achieve 60% immunity, we need 60+% infection rate within the total population (some won't gain immunity having recovered from infection) - you also need to overshoot in case A] your modelling is wrong; and B] when you average it over a population, you'll get pockets which drop below that level - see measles since Wakefield's anti-science fear-mongering. So call it 70%.
Our model WANTS 70% of the population (67M) infected and recovered, before the weather turns in October. Recovery seems to be about 4-6 weeks, so we need 47 million people to have been infected by mid-July. 4.7% (2.2M) of those will need intubation and a respirator to breath for them, another 13.8% (6.47M) will need hospitalisation. Now beds can be re-used over that 5.5 month period (4 months + 6 weeks); so each bed can take 4-6 people. We currently have 167,000 hospital beds of all sorts (NHS and private), NHS occupancy rates are somewhere around 90% (I can't find figures for private beds). For inensive care (intubation and respirator) we have less than 4,000 beds. To be optimistic, let's say that each bed can take 6 people in the required time - so that means we can (currently) look after 24,000 of the 2.2M intensive care people; and 0.98M of the 6.47M who need hospitalisation.
Now, we CAN increase the number of beds, and even of ICU beds by throwing money at it - converting hotels to hospitals; buying specialist eqipment etc. We MIGHT be able to provide enough beds for the hospitalisation category; but ICU?... There are 730k hotel rooms in the UK - if they are all requisitioned, and all take 6 patients, we're up by another 4.38M beds, out of the 8.6M needed - so all those hotel rooms would need to double up (which leaves the NHS beds free to take their current load). Equally, money can only take you so far in terms of staffing, which we won't have time to train, so will have to import. We'll have to import knackered, demoralised staff from China, Italy, Iran - assuming they can spare them by then (equally, once we've acheived herd immunity, we can export staff). That all looks possible. To do this, would require the NHS to increase in size, from looking after 125,000 beds to looking after 1.58M beds (current NHS + 2 per hospital room).
Taking that 70% figure: Assuming we had the capacity to convert all those hospital bed, buy all the equipment and import all the staff, then our death toll should remain at around 0.5M for a non-overwhelmed health service. Assuming we can do none of that; and the NHS remains the size it is; then the death toll will be somewhere around 5 Million people (possibly a lot more). The reality will be somewhere in between. Of course, get the timing of the draconian measures wrong, and we may "only" infect 55% of the population, and not acheive herd immunity; or infect 85% of the population; bringing the beds needed (and death toll) ever higher. Or we may have it wrong as to what percentage of the population needs exposure to create herd immunity. Or it may mutate and become less lethal (highly likely to happen, but reasonably random as to when); or it may be the immunity is only conferred temporarily, or that the virus will mutate and side-step current immunity - these are all gambles.
Of course, the matsh assumes a flat curve; not bell - reality will be way more complicated.



Other governments (and WHO recommend) are taking measures to flatten the curves, so that the peak is shallower, but last longer (18 months - by which time, even if they haven't acheived herd immunity, a vaccine MAY be available - there already seems to be some promise there, but extremely tentative at this stage).
Those same maths applied to the UK above would mean that each hospital bed would take 18 patients, not 6. The overall financial cost will be the same, but spread over 18 months, not 6. The numbers infected at any one time remain low enough that there are always hospital beds, equipment, and staff to care for them - keeping the death toll at or around the 1% figure. They can also be more reactive to the facts on the ground; as they're dealing with a shallower curve. It doesn't really matter with that model, if they can slow progression enough to take 24 months, or long enough for a vaccine to be produced, and confer immunity with 0 extra deaths from that point - the point is that their health services are much less likely to become overwhelmed - which can easily mean an order of magnitude on the death toll.


In a nut shell, our government seems to be saying "We can't stop this thing" - which is correct. "We can't apply severe measures for long enough" - sadly, probably correct. "So let's get it over and done with, in as managed a way as we can" - which means more-or-less unchecked, until we're further along the exponential curves. "Sadly, some of us will die" - which could mean 10 times as many as if different decisions were made.
The hope is that we emerge out of the other side of this a good year or so before the rest of the world, and start rebuilding (with a younger demographic) sooner.

Equally, stressing social distancing, and hygeine issues isn't "nothing" - it may even have been enough for the plan to work and spread over the desired time frame.

For the record - the more I think about it, the more sympathy I have for the governments position - in terms of cold, hard calculation. It may also be a case that it's already too late for other options to actually work, which may well explain Wednesday's delay.

I can understand the cold equation and the logic, but surely trying something is better than doing less because it probably won't work...

 

[ncurd]

I can understand the cold equation and the logic, but surely trying something is better than doing less because it probably won't work...

I'm nit going to say the government is correct however their resources are finite. Everyone working in this is flat out currently they have to ask the question is it worth wasting time on measures that have little to no effect when at they could be working if things that have greater impact down the line.

 

[Which Tyler]

Good points on cocooning, I hadn't figured in above

ETA: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...st-britain-herd-immunity-coronavirus-covid-19