Ed Davey has sent this email to party members:
Munira Wilson MP and I have just returned from a meeting at COBRA with senior officials in charge of managing the Coronavirus response.
As a party that believes in listening to experts and scientists, we continue to support the approach of the Chief Medical Officer and his team, whilst doing our job of asking reasonable questions.
Like many of you, we wanted to understand why the Government isn’t following our European neighbours – including Spain, Denmark and France – by implementing more stringent social distancing measures.
The Government must be more transparent about how they are interpreting the expert advice to gain public trust on this vital issue.
We must have clearer advice for those who are most vulnerable to coronavirus and better guidance for the care sector.
As you will know, we have decided to cancel our party conference this weekend. With vulnerable people at the front of my mind, this decision is the right one for fellow party members and for the country.
You will also have heard today that local elections taking place this May are being delayed. Thank you to all the campaigners who have been getting ready for this important set of elections. We will keep members updated on the latest advice.
Clearly this is a rapidly changing situation but I’d like to reassure you that I – and indeed all Liberal Democrat parliamentarians, along with our colleagues in local government – are doing all we can to stand up for people who might be impacted over the coming months.
In the meantime, the single most important thing we can all do is wash our hands regularly and thoroughly, and follow the advice at www.nhs.uk/coronavirus if you feel unwell.
Take care – and best wishes,
Ed Davey
Acting Leader of the Liberal DemocratsPS. We’ve created a new page with information on coronavirus. You can find the most up to date advice about matters that will affect the party here: www.libdems.org.uk/covid19
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Nonconformistradical
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
83 Comments
No just no. You are tagging along with a flawed policy and when it goes badly wrong squealing “We followed the expert opion of our experts, who took a totally diffrent policy to those that worked in the rest of the world” will not wash.
frankie,
You are entitled to an opinion, but do you have any relevant qualifications ?
And Ed made the specific point that they asked about the UK’s divergence from other responses.
Lost faith in experts, frankie?
@frankie
Again, I find myself agreeing with you.
Liberal Democrats were always at the forefront of demanding that the government be transparent when it comes to “expert advice” and “research papers” and holding governments to account.
The party needs to be demanding that the Government releases its scientific data so that it can be independently scrutinised by other experts in the field.
The country needs transparency more than ever, this is going to be a monumental task for the whole country to come together to give us all the best chances of coming through this with the least amount of casualties, it’s going to be bloody tough on all us and is going to mean very big changes to our way of life even if only for a short term ( how that is defined I have no idea)
But if we are going to ask the country to do that then the people will need faith in the government that the advice they are being given is sound, we need to bring the people together on this or it will all fall apart.
We need more transparency and honesty from the government more than ever and Liberal Democrats need to lead the charge on it.
Frankie is a disgrace.
Yes I’m a great believer in experts especially ones who can point out sucessful outcomes. So far with coronsvirus the experts who have halted and driven it back are the Chinese and Koreans our experts not so much.
Ambighter – No, he is not. You are. This whole “herd immunity” stuff is a giant Social Darwinist eugenic experiment where the old and the weak will be culled, there won’t be enough hospital capacity for all of the infected cases in a “no social distancing” scenario. Every Libdem has a moral duty to oppose it.
You do notice that most of the countries with “business as usual” approach until very late are governed by centre-right parties who often emphasize economics over human life.
By the way, SARS was not contained by “herd immunity”, but by strong and proactive government actions. Countries that experienced SARS (Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Canada…) are doing just like that.
Malcolm Todd – experts in other countries, especially countries with SARS experience, totally disagree with that notion.
crewegwyn – You are entitled to an opinion, but do you have any relevant qualifications? I will trust experts from countries that have direct experience with SARS over British experts. I will trust the majority of experts who call for tough actions over the “herd immunity” minority – even among experts, the majority have spoken, and there is no point doing differently.
Well I’m not an expert and may even be a disgrace but it appears my poltical antenna are much more finely tuned to the mood and reality we live in than poor Depeffle and Ed.
Mass gatherings are to be banned across the UK from next weekend, the government has announced after Boris Johnson’s cautious approach to the coronavirus outbreak was overtaken by care homes, sporting bodies and even the Queen taking matters into their own hands.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/uk-to-ban-mass-gatherings-in-coronavirus-u-turn
Running behind the public as they force you to take decisions you said where wrong is never a good look. But you will cry the experts don’t think this is a good idea, well putting aside the debate of how valid their view is ( and being in a minority in the world means you better be able to point to a shed load of data to prove your point), if you believe it you should be willing to face the public and explain why it is right. Depeffle has flung in the towel and ran after the public to implement the policies the rest of the world have taken. The problem is he’s late and even if these policies work they will work less well than if they had been implemented weeks ago.
I was aghast when the “herd immunity” idea was mentioned on the Radio 4 Today programme on Thursday morning. I thought that it was a mental blip, a colossal misspeak, but the interviewer pushed on and “herd immunity” was repeated.
“Herd immunity” implies that some people contract the disease, they survive and are most lively to survive when the virus returns. Some people will die, some people will remain well because they are not exposed to the virus. Unless or until.
We are just cattle.
I am not sure what Frankie is saying no to. One of the more intelligent comments I heard recently was from Jeremy Hunt, who said that the UK is in effect four weeks behind Italy and that we have to make use of this time preparing for a surge in illness and doing what we can to slow the rate of increase.
Having listened to a number of experts, it is clear to me that testing for the disease, identifying those who may be carrying the disease is vital. This means contacting and testing everyone who has been close to anyone found to have the disease. There are some countries such as Norway that appear to have very high rates of infection but comparatively low death rates. My guess is that they are doing the right thing.
Curtailing social gatherings is an obvious measure, I cannot see how the UK can avoid closing schools. Children are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers of the disease. Another obvious risk is public transport, particularly overcrowded public transport.
Unfortunately all the indicators in almost all countries show an exponential curve. Only China appears to have stabilised infection rates. We have to delay where we can and prepare for much worse.
Thomas is right, ‘experts’ disagree and politicians have to make decisions based on conflicting scientific advice. “Herd immunity” is a Cummings-esque concept (I’m not suggesting that it is his idea) and if “our loved ones” die in large numbers Johnson’s support for the strategy could destroy his premiership.
Well her indoors was due to go to work today but woke up feeling ill with some symptoms not normal for her.
So she is self-isolating for seven days. Have to use a different bedroom, different loo, different cleaning items, double bag her waste. Will be interesting to see how this works in practice.
Luckily not having any symptoms myself I’ll be able to do shopping etc.
It won’t be so easy if I develop symptoms before she is better.
Hand washing advice derived from “Roaming Charges” from “Counterpunch”:
“Always scrub your hands like you have just shook hands with the Prime Minister”
(From JeffreySt Clair)
Martin,
I’m saying No to the
Let the virus run it’s course, hopefully the sick and old can hide away until the majority get it and they can reemerge from isolation aka herd immunity. It is the counsel of dispair; nothing we can do lets get on with it, take it on the chin and hope not too many will die.
It is wrong from a moral stand but does fit into the Cummings view of a world built on constructive destruction, after all most who die will be the economically inactive and what use are they too Cummings and his ilk in a new red in tooth and claw world. Even casting aside the morals of sacrificing the old, ill and weak it fails on the economic case. The take it on the chin case only works with a society used to privation and death, in a society like ours featherbeded in the main from privation, delusionally thinking death is optional a dose of this type of reality leads to people doing the opposite of what the experts want and what the government encourage. Spend, go to major events, don’t horde toilet roll cry the powers that be, the reality is the public do the exact oppersite. The people havn’t just lost faith in experts they have lost faith in the ruling class and hence anything they say is likely to be counter productive. But, but you may cry Ed isn’t in favour of take it on the chin, well with a statement of
“As a party that believes in listening to experts and scientists, we continue to support the approach of the Chief Medical Officer and his team, ”
he clearly is. Time to think logically Ed, why is our approach right and the rest of the worlds wrong. Why is our approach better than China’s, South Korea’s or Singaphore who are buying time for a vacine to deliver herd immunity rather than letting the virus take its course to deliver it.
Who knows what the Government’s thinking really is. What the Chinese did to quell hopefully an epidemic that their weird animal husbandry practices may well have started just proves what you can do if you have a compliant (aka repressed) population. Could this be done here, especially if we believe so many LDV contributors that ours is really a ‘liberal’ country? If the short (ie six week) shock doesn’t work, what then?
The other factor to consider is that they may have looked at the business plan and realised that, even if elective surgery were put on hold for thousands of Brits, the NHS in its present state, not forgetting austerity ravaged Local Government, just could not cope with a ‘big bang’. Could we really countenance the idea that, if it really does get that bad, doctors might conceivably be faced with the dilemma of deciding who lives and who dies?
So, whatever happens, life as we currently live it will have to change. Nature has a way of fighting back, doesn’t she? Perhaps she and Greta are working together here. Only ALDC appears to think that, despite the local elections being cancelled and Brexit heading towards the back burner, it’s still business as usual, more or less! Get those leaflets out and knock on those doors, but make sure you wash your hands.. It’s carpe diem time, folks.
One thing is certain, this current challenge will test the resilience of many populations and the effectiveness of many public health systems, as well as the leadership shown by many politicians around the world. At the moment, Johnson appears to have stepped up to the plate. If I were Trump, I would be getting mighty worried about November.
Obviously there are more pressing matters at the moment but I do hope the party will be giving extra support to our London Mayoral candidate who must have made enormous personal, financial and career sacrifices to build up to May and now has to march back down the hill.
Fag Packet stuff.
Herd immunity kicks in at around 60%.
Fatality 1%
65000000 people for instance.
Simple multiplication
390000 people dead
That’s the plan?
Well said P.J.
Every time I hear that for most people this will be no worse than the usual flu or even a bad cold, I think of the large number (but small percentage) who are not “most people”.
390,000 people dead? My calculation was based on an 80% infection rate, which led to a figure of 520.000 people dead in the UK if fatalities are kept to just 1%, double those figures if it rose to 2%. The truth may be somewhere in between.
Or the Government could treat containment far more seriously and get that figure down, but that, of course, would miss the opportunity to cull the expensive end of health care.
I’m not surprised that the Tories are taking this casual approach, but deeply disappointed that we are not questioning and challenging it more than we are.
I’m sorry, but this is another occasion where we need judgement and not just to blindly follow expert advice. We didn’t follow expert advice regarding our conference did we? So how people can immediately pillory frankie just for not following expert advice, is clearly either an example of not thinking things through in the heat of the moment or good old fashioned double standards. I’m sure its not the latter.
I note Eds comment that he seems to have asked *reasonable* questions, but I doubt if he was given the time to ask a series of structured questions needed to get to the bottom of the situation. In a time of crisis it is the unreasonable questions that have to be asked and the answers forensically analysed and further questioned to get to the truth.
We put ourselves ahead of the curve when we cancelled conference as I (and others were urging). We must not squander the opportunity that decision has given us, by returning to the comfort of asking reasonable questions and just going with the flow.
‘Herd immunity’ is normally a term applied to vaccination programmes. Short of eradicating a pathogen, It is very obviously the aim for overcoming any serious infection, in fact it is the route for eradicating a viral infection. I really doubt that it constitutes “the approach of the Chief Medical Officer and his team” – it is up to Ed Davey to inform us – I cannot see that this advice should be confidential.
As others have pointed out allowing a disease to spread through the population implies deaths of about half a million. Without improving recovery rates this would be inevitable. What matters even more is the rate of transmission. Serious illness on this scale would overwhelm health care and further exacerbate the mortality rate. However pessimistically we view this disease, the priority has to be to reduce transmission rates; this requires knowledge of who is carrying the disease.
There is a lot of outrage in these comments. I share the general view that the ideal number of deaths would be zero, but wishes don’t always come true in life, especially when you are dealing with a new virus. Immunity is the only solution (unless some new anti-viral drugs are developed) and that can only come from a safe vaccine (not ready for a year or two, probably) or exposure to the real thing. If the large number of fit people who will survive exposure actually get it, herd immunity will make it impossible for the virus to spread, other than very sporadically. The government is doing exactly the right thing in trying to orchestrate a relatively low speed of spread. That will mean those who will suffer badly but survive – but only if there are enough hospital beds – will live, and others who can’t be saved will die. That isn’t a cynical government policy (although it will help with the crisis in care for the elderly) it’s a sensible response to an attack by a virus which nobody wanted.
The climate emergency ought to have taught us to be less cocky about our ruling position in the ecosphere and to admit that we can’t always ‘take back control’ even from a tiny little object like a virus. We should be grateful that it targets the elderly, and not the young, and that the mortality rate is low. There are many things to blame the Tory government for; this isn’t one of them.
Andrew Daer – the problem is that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether recovered patients develop immunity against Covid. Therefore, Boris is literally gambling by going against WHO advice. Meanwhile, countries that are successful in controlling the pandemic are the ones that impose social distancing and quarantine measures – and they are also the ones that had direct experience with SARS.
“The government is doing exactly the right thing in trying to orchestrate a relatively low speed of spread.” – you are not going to slow down infection without enforcing social distancing. Evidence suggests that imposing social distancing just one day earlier can reduce the rate of infection by 40%.
By the way, BoJo just have to U-turn and proceed with banning large gatherings and closing unis (btw, there are no social consequences of closing unis – uni students are already adults). If you think it’s alright to allow large gatherings, then you should read about the War bond parade in Philadelphia in 1918 and its outcomes.
The CMO for England told the parliamentary select committee that the four CMOs talk to each other because there are minor differences in their geographical contexts. Obviously the NHS in Northern Ireland has had historical problems to deal with during the Troubles, for instance in surgery, but the devolved politicians sometimes differ and may prefer the medics and other scientists to talk first.
Assume Ed had to sign the official secrets act to attend Cobra and that is why he has not divulged the contents of the meeting, which would have been useful in emphasizing LibDem openness compare to other political parties. Why aren’t people here leaping up and down about flu deaths as well, tripling the size of the NHS would surely let people live a little bit longer…
There has been a run on Vitamin C in the supermarkets, empty shelves…
Those concerned about the UK Government’s (in)action compared with the bolder decisions made by the leaders of other countries, may like to read this article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It is actually about the influenza pandemic of 1918, but illustrates how much difference good public health actions can make, even when you have no treatment for the disease:
https://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7588.full
Indeed Laurence and if I remember rightly the conclusion was shutting down and socially isolating saves lives. The hit on the economy is hard by doing that, which leads us to the question
Which is more important saving lives or saving money?
Personally I’d vote save lives but others will and do think money is more important.
P.S I’m off looking to get some cash to pay the bills, unfortunately the cash machines around me seem to be empty, yet more evidence I fear of panic and yet another reason why take it on the chin won’t work.
Thomas:
On “whether recovered patients develop immunity against Covid”, there is a simple answer which is Yes – it is the only way to recover from a Corona virus.
I learned about the 1918 Philadelphia war bond parade quite recently, how instrumental it was in spreading infection in an all ready over crowded and insanitary city can only be guessed but it certainly made matters worse. Social distancing, reducing travelling and identification of disease carriers are more or less all we can do. I do not know what can be done in a couple of weeks to prepare the health service for a massive strain on its resources.
Frank West: If expert health advice is being treated as classified information, the least that Ed Davey could be saying is that this is wrong and call for the advice to be made public. That said, I do not think that the advice is such a mystery because people around the world who are experts do tend to say the same things.
Why is no-one in the party (at least from what I can see) saying anything about the proposed emergency powers which (at least in the leaked/pre-briefed version) look exceptionally broad in scope and time
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1238589554342461440
“Liberties lost tend to be liberties hard to regain.” – Charles Kennedy, Conference speech, Sept 2001.
This is a Pandemic. The virus is inter-continental and we have to assume it is here to stay. Even if it lies dormant in the summer, it may well return next winter just as seasonal Flu does. The coronavirus is much more infectious than seasonal flu and potentially more deadly for the elderly and those with existing health conditions.
Lockdowns can only slow down the rate of infection to prevent overwhelming the health services and can only be effective for relatively short periods. People will only stay locked away in their homes for a week or two and may well be infected when they return to travelling , shopping and working. The virus doesn’t go away by itself. The only long-term solutions are immunity or a vaccine. For patients that get seriously ill during the process of developing herd immunity, a convalescent serum could be tried until a vaccine is developed. These are all mitigation strategies nor cures.
I think Martin is correct to say “Social distancing, reducing travelling and identification of disease carriers are more or less all we can do.”
@frankie
Re: Well I’m not an expert and may even be a disgrace but it appears my poltical antenna are much more finely tuned to the mood and reality we live in than poor Depeffle and Ed. [13th Mar ’20 – 11:37pm]
Well from where I sit – 48 hours after doing a deep clean of a facility used by vulnerable adults (something they are now equipped to do and fully anticipate they will be doing again and again in the next 4~6 months), I suggest BoJo’s advisors are actually far more tuned into the mood than you think.
Yes the UK government does seem to be slightly behind the curve, however, in this last week through what seems a carefully choreographed sequence of announcements they have prepared the ground and public opinion for the introduction of more draconian measures; which from the announcements in the last 48 hours are starting to come thick and fast – all with public approval.
Now rewind a little and we can see that if the UK government had acted like China, many would be up in hands – now with Italy etc. we have the public domain evidence needed to get the public to get on-board. Remember the stupidity of thinking surrounding the flying back of people in quarantine abroad – it would of been better to have left them where they were or have the cruise ship bring them back to the UK.
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, and that is just this year – at the moment we have no understanding of whether a variant will being doing the rounds next year.
If the LibDems really are on the ball then they will be reviewing now whether the autumn conference should be going ahead, given the government forecasts for the spread of Corona virus across the UK.
The Experts are pretty open about how much they dont know yet & we should imitate their humility.
We know that lots of people are going to die, I dont take that lightly, I am in two of the High Risk categories myself.
Without intervention the Virus seems likely to peak around late May/early June & decline rapidly after that. Are China & Italy going to stay in lockdown till the Autumn ? When they come out into the World again, whats to stop the Virus coming back too ?
That different Countries are taking different approaches is a good thing, it should give us useful information for the next Pandemic.
Joe Bourke – then mass testing will aid the identification and isolation of infected cases. This is what South Korea is doing – I mean, they literally have been preparing for a potential bioweapon attack from North Korea.
I am concerned that a herd immunity strategy can fall flat if the virus mutates, and we all know that there are already at least 2 strains of Covid.
Martin – “Social distancing, reducing travelling and identification of disease carriers are more or less all we can do” – nobody disagrees with this. The problem is that the government until like yesterday did not bother introducing social distancing and travel restriction measures. I mean, my point is that we should strive to avoid having to imposing lockdown and proactive social distancing is the only way to do so.
Also, when I talked about whether recovered patients develop herd immunity against Covid, I am concerned that they may never develop immunity at all when they recover – I mean, there are accounts of people being reinfected shortly after recovery.
Laurence Cox – but then St Louis (which imposed strict social distancing) still had lower overall death rate than Philly (well, War Bond parade) even after the second wave – you can still effective reintroduce such measures during a hypothetical second wave.
The science is settled. Listen to the experts. The conclusion from the models is clear.
I’ve heard this somewhere else….
There is a lot of criticism of the Johnson administration’s fairly casual talk of mass death and herd immunity. I agree that such talk is unkind and tactless (since when has Boris understood tact). I don’t however think it is indicative of the level of moral failure that people are implying in this thread.
It’s a fundamental fact of emergency management that when you take action to mitigate disasters, you pay for it in the physical and emotional wellbeing of the people you seek to protect. Famously, Fukishima killed 2,203 people, 1 due to radiation exposure, 2202 due the consequences of unnecessary evacuation (e.g. nursing home residents who got hypothermia).
The basic principles of the current administration’s strategy is as follows:
1. Coronavirus is going to continue to spread until too many people are immune by virtue of previous infection for it to continue spreading. This is herd immunity and is being estimated at around 70%.
2. Consequently trying to reduce the total number of cases is pointless and will cause substantial harm for no benefit.
3. Instead, the mitigation measures have 2 goals.
a) Delay the peak into summer when respiratory diseases are less contagious and the NHS is less busy.
b) Spread the outbreak over a longer time, so that the number of cases at any one point is lower. Hopefully this will stop the NHS running out of resources (probably ICU beds with ventilators).
After the outbreak we will look back and the picture will be clearer. We may find that many other countries have gone through brutal regimes of social isolation for no meaningful benefit. Alternatively, we may end up with a higher death rate here due to a failure to take proper measures. For now it is unclear, different experts in different countries will make different decisions.
By all means debate strategy and criticise the current administration’s lack of transparency and poor communication. But don’t call Boris Johnson evil just because he is prepared to shout “security theatre” at measures his experts are thoughtfully concluding impose needless suffering for no benefit. He has enough moral failings as it is without us needing to invent new ones.
Thomas,
mass testing is a good measure. The preventative measures being taken in South Korea have so far involved no lockdowns, no roadblocks and no restriction on movement. Trace, test and treat has been the mantra.
A British company has reportedly developed a rapid diagnostic self-testing kit for Covid-19 . The 10-minute testing kit is due to be distributed around the UK from next week.
The kits will be distributed for use by health care professionals first – in order that pharmacists are able to test their staff.
The company hopes to make self-testing kits available to the public within three weeks.
Results can be obtained in around 10 minutes. Currently NHS testing takes four hours. The new kit works in the same way blood sugar is tested by using a pin prick on patients’ thumbs.
There should be enough data by now to see if there is correlation between large outbreaks and things like humidity, blood group and many other things (things are obscured a bit by travel bringing the virus in, though). Humidity in north Italy is 70 to 80 percent, where I live in the UK around 90 percent, be ironic if our often awful weather wasn’t to the liking of the virus, at least in airborne form. And something as simple as hand-washing dealt with other forms.
Disappointing press today from the Lib Dem’s. It is always easy to demand more action, and it did get coverage. But I find myself respecting the responsible and scientifically sound position taken by the government rather than the shallow and populist comments reported in the press. It embarrassing for a 30 year plus member who has never voted Conservative. Hopefully the position will be corrected shortly.
Frank West: UK cases have increased by 50% and deaths doubled in one day.
One useful benefit of this disaster might be the end of cruise ships which create huge amounts of pollution and could create their own disaster by having 1000 passengers on one ship. The hotels will need all the holiday makers they can take after this emergency has ended. They were already having problems with competition from fake B & Bs
“Dr Harris told BBC Radio 4’s Today: “We don’t know enough about the science of this virus, it hasn’t been in our population for long enough for us to know what it does in immunological terms.
“Every virus functions differently in your body and stimulates a different immunological profile. We can talk theories, but at the moment we are really facing a situation where we have got to look at action.””
I would have thought it makes far more sense to delay the spread of this virus for as long as possible now especially for the elderly and those with underlying health conditions who are vulnerable to this virus.
As the medics around the world are learning more and more about this virus through treating other patients, learning which medications are effective at treating the symptoms, giving scientists the breathing space to come up with some antiviral medications to treat this current strain.
That seems a far more sensible approach.
Yes the virus will then raise its ugly head again in the winter and we are all going to have to face this virus eventually, but it would be hoped that by time the winter comes around, scientists will have some antiviral medications to treat critical patients and a vaccine will follow sometime after.
It seems far safer to me to develop “herd immunity” through vaccination and not through exposure to a full-on new virus that we know very little about and there is not enough scientific evidence to support a “theory.
We have to now, more than ever think what it is to be human and what kind of humanity we want to live in. That surely has to be, going all out to protect as many lives as possible with the minimum amount of risk.
You can recover the economy, you cannot recover lost lives
China number of new coronavirus cases
BEIJING (Reuters) – The Chinese city of Wuhan, ground zero of the coronavirus outbreak, reported just five new cases on Friday, the second day in a row the tally has been less than 10, while no locally transmitted infections were reported in the rest of the country.
Wuhan, capital of central Hubei province, registered the five new cases on Thursday, the National Health Commission said, down from eight cases the previous day. The commission routinely reports new cases the day after the data is collected.
But, but they won’t be able to keep China locked down until a vaccine is ready say many, my reply to that is but, but they will.
From Peter Davies’s (2.57 pm) thoughtful defence of the Government position:
“1. Coronavirus is going to continue to spread until too many people are immune by virtue of previous infection for it to continue spreading. This is herd immunity and is being estimated at around 70%.
2. Consequently trying to reduce the total number of cases is pointless and will cause substantial harm for no benefit.”
But, (1) is an unproven hypothesis. It may turn out to be correct. Or, perhaps infection will not confer immunity (sometimes it doesn’t). Or, perhaps a vaccine will be found early enough to help those nations who have taken more drastic action than the UK. Or, perhaps the virus will mutate and become far less, or far more, virulent (that can happen too). We just don’t know. The 70% figure is itself an embarrassingly simplistic piece of fagpacket maths, based on best-guesstimates of coronavirus infectivity, and it could easily be wrong.
So (2) should read: “Trying to reduce the total number of cases will be pointless, if it turns out the Chief Medical Officer’s hunch is correct. And indeed, it might very well turn out to be correct. But if it is not correct, then Britain might suffer a much higher death rate than it needed to.”
Peter Davies has got it about right in my opinion. Time will tell whether they judge it correctly between running out of NHS ICU beds and achieving herd immunity plus least disruption to the country.
Shutting down the country is a terrible option. Who should stay at home? Food distributors? Medical staff? Electrical supply engineers? Funeral directors? The list is endless.
Even without lockdown, we are well on the way to losing large and small companies across a range of market sectors. I am not so concerned about the companies but we should all be concerned about the consequences for those who will be left penniless and even homeless as a consequence.
The government has a very difficult task. It is understandable that people should worry but I think it would be misplaced to turn that into anger. On a personal note, I know that if I become infected I shall almost certainly die within a fortnight because of other conditions. I have so much that I would like to do with my life that this would be a serious disappointment. Worse than that is the realisation that my adorable three year old granddaughter will probably be the innocent assassin yet I would hate to self isolate from her. Such is life. (or the other thing.)
We have spent a week listening to experts explaining that it would be pointless to play football matches behind locked doors, because fans forced to watch matches on TV in pubs would be at no lesser risk of infection. Then what happened? The football business, showing a better sense of responsibility than the Government, found the right answer – Stop playing the matches altogether!
So let’s not have this “respect for the scientifically sound position taken by the government”. Posing alongside scientists has helped Johnson look responsible, while helping offload some of the responsibility for his decisions onto others. But it has been left to the football business to show Government how to do “social distancing” effectively.
“Social distancing, reducing travelling and identification of disease carriers are more or less all we can do.”
Without shutting down the country, we need to be looking for more that we can do, not making excuses for doing less. Granted, school closures would drastically harm the economy and might turn people against a government which imposed them. So what can we do that would be more helpful and less harmful?
First I would suggest, we need to prioritise physical distancing for the most vulnerable, and help to make it easier for those affected. Just telling the over 70s to stop going on cruises is a pathetically minimal prescription. While the young build up “herd immunity”, the vulnerable must be kept safe.
We should pay the phone bills for care homes, so that their residents can talk for free to their families and not necessarily receive physical visits. We should help the vulnerable shop online, for example by giving those without computers the option to phone a volunteer who can help place a grocery order. These are just examples. We can do more. We should.
@David Allen – you are right. I am voluntarily social distancing almost to the point of self-isolating. I fall into the vulnerable age group but don’t have underlying health issues, whereas my husband does. We are enjoying the prospect of getting on with some jobs in the house and garden that we haven’t quite got round to until now, and will take full advantage of Netflix.
But there has been precious little advice for people like us, apart from washing hands and avoiding cruises (as if anyone would go on a cruise in the current circumstances). There is a week’s delay in getting an online food order delivered. We can cope, but many others can’t, including many people who are living independent lives and are not known to social services.
As Lib Dems we can publicise community self-help groups and promote neighbourliness. But the Government needs to provide much more detailed guidance for older people with health conditions.
And one further thing – I wish all those people who blithely write and talk about losing loved ones would remember that we are here too, part of the community and hearing it all. It doesn’t help us to sleep well at night.
David Allan,
Prime Ministers are not immune to the disease either. This Guardian article from 2018 tells the story of Lloyd George’s “touch and go” encounter with Spanish Flu two months before the Great War came to an end.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/09/spanish-flu-pandemic-centenary-first-world-war
The article notes “…genes from the Spanish flu continue to circulate in human and pig populations to this day. Some of these genes are direct descendants of the 1918 virus; others have reassorted with other pandemic viruses, such as the 1968 Hong Kong flu and the hybrid H1N1 virus responsible for the 2009 swine flu pandemic. As Taubenberger puts it: “[The outbreak of] 1918 set up a very successful introduction of a bird-like virus in humans that has never gone away in 100 years. It really was the mother of all pandemics.’
It is perhaps conceivable that this Covid-19 is a descendant or mutation of the original Spanish Flu. Scientists now suspect this coronavirus originated in a bat and somehow hopped to another animal, possibly the pangolin, which then passed it on to humans.
@Mary Reid
Absolutely agree, I can’t believe the lack of compassion that I am reading in some peoples posts all over the internet. I never thought I would live in a world where things have gotten that bad, to the point that it appears as though some attitudes are that there is an “accepted cost” I am sorry I will never accept the cost of 1 person if we could have done more to protect.
@David Allen
Again I agree entirely.
I am tempted to say that the Government are looking foolish when they are being outpaced by event organisers who are coming to socially responsible decisions ahead of the Government, but the word “foolish” does not cut it and the words I would want to use would never make it through.
I do not think the Government and its “scientific advisors” are giving the people credit for the amount of social disruption and economic hit that they would be prepared to take to deal with this crisis. People are scared, it is quite clear from the vast majority of social media posts and comments on Newpapers websites that public opinion has shifted from ridiculing the coronavirus as an overblown hype and media scare tactics to being outright scared and wanting the government to act to protect the citizens and the vulnerable.
What I do fear is that the Government is getting the public reaction to this all wrong. They will not accept sacrificing their parents and grandparents or children with disabilities. If they think the Government response to all this is dangerous and putting their loved ones at risk, we may well see civil disobedience on a level that we have never seen before in the Uk and that would be catastrophic for frontline services who would already be at breaking point.
I feel that Boris needs to get a grip on this and fast and change tact, follow the advice of the Who, whom we are after all members of and throw everything we got at containing this virus and the spread for as long as possible and give the scientific community a chance to come up with some better antiviral meds to treat those that get infected with the hope that a vaccine will be found in the next 12months.
Just when you thought Brexit and its consequences had no part in this disaster this turns up
Brexit means coronavirus vaccine will be slower to reach the UK
And it will cost more here because of the UK pulling out of the European Medicines Agency on 30 December
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/coronavirus-vaccine-delays-brexit-ema-expensive
Still our Brexi’s and Lexi’s often said no price was too high, I suspect many may be revaluating that decsion.
@frankie
I dont think now is the time to be throwing your old Brexit arguments around.
What your saying is purely speculative, we have no idea which country is going to be the first to develop a vaccine.
And no matter which country it is, one would hope that considering this is a world crisis where our very humanity is at risk, they will do the right thing and put humanity before trade deals and negotiations, after all in order to eradicate this virus the entire world needs to get vaccinated as soon as possible and no country is going to be able to truly recover from this until that happens.
That is unless countries want to become totally isolationist and cut themselves off entirely from the rest of the world forever and ever amen.
But that is something to fret about down the line, let’s just hope America has its elections by then and trump is booted out, or god forbid does he have some kind of power to cancel the elections due to an emergency power??
I am scared enough as it is, without even thinking about that as well
Peter – herd immunity is a dangerous assumption, because there is no evidence to back it. Covid-19 is a coronavirus and a relative of SARS and you know, peopel never develop immunity against SARS after recovering. Regarding lockdown, I don’t advocate for total lockdown, but proactive social distancing measures: travel controls (banning cruises…), closing universities and schools, banning gatherings of 100 or more – public or private alike – except for key production activities (non-essential places like karaokes, night clubs, cinemas, playgrounds, hotels… must be closed), banning outside people from visiting elder nursing homes, pushing for working from home… You say we should listen to experts, but experts in other countries and from the WHO have the opposite advice to UK experts, and in terms of competency I probably trust the SK and the Canadian governments over a BoJo government.
Joseph Bourke – it is a relative of SARS with weaker lethality but stronger infection rate.
David Allen – “We have spent a week listening to experts explaining that it would be pointless to play football matches behind locked doors, because fans forced to watch matches on TV in pubs would be at no lesser risk of infection. Then what happened?” – challenge accepted. Let’s closing pubs, bars, nightclubs, karaokes… all public entertainment places.
Stephen Donelly – “But I find myself respecting the responsible and scientifically sound position taken by the government rather than the shallow and populist comments reported in the press” – when your government goes against WHO and international consensus, it must be questioned, especially when the gov’s approach does not have sufficient scientific evidence. Btw, I trust the decisions of SK or Canadian governments over BoJo.
Mary – the lack of discussion about what having the virus actually feels like reminds me of the taboos about childbirth. No-one will really admit that it hurts. A lot. The human being though is a remarkable creature and sends sleep, adrenalin or natural pain relief to help deal with a crisis.
Clare Gerada is 60 and says on the BBC website that she had the virus, that it was a nastier flu than she had ever had before but that she could sleep and that paracetamol did touch it. I am 53 and am sure I have had real flu three times at 23, 43 and 44. If anything I am more worried about my teenagers who are wonderful but have never had any kind of flu and vary in their levels of stoicism!
https://qz.com/1816060/a-chart-of-the-1918-spanish-flu-shows-why-social-distancing-works/
Proactive social distancing worked excellently un St Louis during the 1918 Spanish Flu as well. And the modern version of St Louis methods is currently used by South Korea.
Peter – “Shutting down the country is a terrible option. Who should stay at home? Food distributors? Medical staff? Electrical supply engineers? Funeral directors? The list is endless.”
David Allen – “We have spent a week listening to experts explaining that it would be pointless to play football matches behind locked doors, because fans forced to watch matches on TV in pubs would be at no lesser risk of infection. Then what happened? The football business, showing a better sense of responsibility than the Government, found the right answer – Stop playing the matches altogether!”
You can close all non-essential places such as hotels, brothels (oh boy), nightclubs, karaokes, theatres, cinemas, children playgrounds, churches, mosques… You can ban all gatherings not related to key production activities of 100 people or more, public or private alike (e.g. weddings, funerals, or the last Smurf gathering in Paris…). You can impose travel restrictions such as banning cruises or limit all international flights to only a number of designated airports.
Social distancing is a Goldilocks problem – too little or too much are both bad. Complete lockdown means no-one gets immunity until a vaccine comes along, as might well happen later in China. Criticising the government for not doing what everyone else is doing is not helpful. Regarding the idea that having the disease may not provide immunity, if that is the case it doesn’t bode well for a vaccine – why would that leave our immune systems any better off than if they had encountered the real thing?
@Matt
“one would hope that considering this is a world crisis where our very humanity is at risk, they will do the right thing and put humanity before trade deals and negotiations”
I’m not holding my breath on this
Further to my previous post about not holding my breath – the following from the Guardian Coronavirus blog:-
11m ago 09:05
German newspaper Welt am Sonntag has reported that US president Donald Trump has sought exclusive rights to a vaccine for the coronavirus which is being developed by a German-based company, CureVac.
The report, which quoted unnamed sources, said Trump had offered large sums of money to German scientists working on the vaccine.
Well, this has neatly demonstrated the problem with “trust the experts”, hasn’t it.
I am not a virologist, epidemiologist, or medical professional. I have some degree-level scientific knowledge, but not in anything related to those areas.
Some people who are experts in those areas (or advised by them) like the chief medical officers are putting forward a policy for the government. Others who are also experts in those areas are suggesting that much greater restrictions are needed to protect the NHS and to minimise the number of deaths. My employer – advised by some of those other experts – has announced further unilateral restrictions: ending large gatherings, massive and rapid rollout of remote working tools where possible, and has been criticised by the relevant secretary of state for overreacting.
Which experts do I trust? Which “political experts” do I trust to make the right government response to the medical assessments? How well people cope with quarantine and isolation is not a fixed thing – can things like better sick pay, etc. encourage people to stick with it? Do I trust Political Expert Boris Johnson PM to make the right call on that?
Ultimately, I’m going to trust the ones I trust on other matters, and distrust the ones I distrust on other matters. What else can I do?
@ Mary Reid It was good to read your decent humane comments, Mary. We too are in the ‘vulnerable age group’, plus my wife is asthmatic and I’m on immunosuppressants after a transplant nine years ago.
We’ll happily self isolate with plenty to do in the house/garden, walk on the beach, skype friends, family and grandchildren. listen to Radio 4, and things we can do at a distance in organisations we’re involved in. We even staged a quick raid (alcoholic wipes aplenty) across the border last Thursday to sneak a quick non touching peep at our latest newborn grandchild).
I take comfort from the thought that on the day I was born, Mum told me the air raid sirens were sounding (no direct connection !!). Somehow Mum and Dad got through all the awful stuff and anxiety with Dad away in the war….(though some of his closest friends didn’t, and it left a mark).
We’re glad to live with a Scottish government more on the ball on this matter than appears to be the case at Westminster. Don’t believe the nonsense in the Tory tabloids down south.
On a more prosaic but practical political note……. could Ed & Co please lobby this incompetent Westminster government to reverse its awful position on the BBC TV licence fee. The ‘vulnerable group’ would appreciate it if he did.
Andrew Rawnsley says:
“I’m no epidemiologist so I won’t pretend to be a qualified judge of whether they are doing the right thing. I am persuaded that they are sincerely endeavouring to do the right thing.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/this-coronavirus-crisis-has-forced-the-retirement-of-pantomime-johnson
I don’t think it is as simple as that. As Rawnsley points out, Johnson has completely changed his act. Gone is the panto jester: in its place has come solemnity, an expressed dependence on the judgement of scientific experts, and the sober warning “I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.” However – once an actor, always an actor. What is the purpose of Johnson’s new act?
Partly, no doubt, it is to reassure the public that sensible realists are in charge and that people can have confidence in what they are doing. But I think it’s more than that. Johnson’s deliberately fatalistic remarks are also designed to downplay the dangerous notion that different options might exist, that alternative decisions could be made, and that there is an agonisingly difficult trade-off to be made between economic interests and health risks. That is a question that should be openly debated, not swept under the carpet by dismissive fatalism.
Yes, over-reacting to events can cause harm. Yes, the wholesale economic disruption that would result from (for example) closing schools could perhaps end up costing more lives, and certainly more livelihoods, than it saved. I would have more confidence if this government were truly to “level with the public”, and encourage a free and open debate on these issues between the alternative “experts”. At the moment, the Government stance tends toward “Put the Economy First”, alongside with the always-bogus Tory slogan “There Is No Alternative!”
David Allan,
you ask – What is the purpose of Johnson’s new act?
Boris Johnson has often referred to Winston Churchill as his political mentor. In times of crisis or panic what is needed is decisive leadership. That duty will generally fall to the Prime Minister. That does nor shut down debate. Even with a national government Churchill had to face a vote of no confidence at a critical time during the war.
The data and modelling the government scientists are using will need to be made available for scrutiny, but when quick action is the order of the day, fast decisions have to made on the best available evidence.
cim – I am more likely to trust the experts from countries that directly experienced SARS – Covid’s closest relative, and countries whose governments have a good track record of being competent: South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand and Canada.
By the way, South Korea literally has been preparing for a potential bioweapon attack from the north. Its president recently offers to share experience to other G20 countries.
Andrew Daer – scientists have been largely unsuccessful in finding vaccines for coronaviruses, and if this is the case, the only thing we can do is to exterminate the virus, like what we did with SARS. By the way, Japan just confirmed a reinfection case, and the Chinese officials also flat out said that reinfection was possible. Overall, evidences so far suggest that Covid is more likely to permanently impair your lungs than to help you develop immunity against it. Therefore, BoJo’s plan is a pure gamble – you cannot call it evidence-based. Even in case of Spanish Flu, American cities with strict social distancing measures were more successful in containing the pandemic (hence, the classic St Louis vs Philadelphia comparison – St Louis’ death toll in both waves was much lower than Philadelphia’s 1st wave).
I repeat, the current government plan is based on a hypothesis, not evidence.
@ Thomas,
“I repeat, the current government plan is based on a hypothesis, not evidence”
So what would you suggest the Govt does?
“Flattening the curve” is all they can do . This means delaying cases so that not too many get the virus all at once. The NHS, and all of us, are then better able to cope. The better we can cope the fewer deaths we are likely to see. If for example, all family members fall ill at the same time there will more likely be deaths than if the illnesses are staggered. This will mean the fit members of the family will be able to take care of those who are sick.
Ideally we should be preventing cases, rather than simply delaying them, but how can we do that unless a vaccine is available?
In considering the response to the coronavirus outbreak the government has to factor in three key elements – the scientific advice around immunology, the economic impact and human behaviour. The aim has to be to achieve the best possible health outcomes while mitigating to the greatest extent possible the economic fallout given the constraints of human behaviour.
The response to the virus will be based on the modelling of these variables to make an assessment of the optimal courses of action – such as they are.
I came across this blog from an Australian economist today (previously referenced by Peter Martin) http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=44488. While this relates to the Australian economy, it does give an indication of the potential economic considerations that may have to be taken into account. You don’t have to agree with the basic assumptions and policy proposals to appreciate the extent of the economic shock. The author does spell out specific policy responses (not simply offer up potential alternative economic theories) which is helpful in considering what might be done to mitigate the economic impact.
For that last set of comments David Raw should be declared a national treasure.
Human behaviour is a significant factor in controlling the virus. If individuals were entirely rational, the management of any communicable disease would be relatively straightforward: prevention, protection and containment could be implemented effortlessly and efficiently.
Unfortunately, we are not rational as experts used to think, but instead, use mental shortcuts which affect how we perceive most aspects of infectious diseases. The limits to human rationality are further exacerbated under strenuous conditions, such as fear.
When public health authorities have to face outbreaks, the Achilles heel is a proper understanding and representation of “real” human behaviour in policies and interventions. Getting people to cooperate towards the goal of containment (self-imposed quarantines, washing hands, limiting travel and gatherings), reducing number of free-riders (hand-sneezers, employees going to work even if sick) to a minimum and avoiding extreme risk perceptions (panic and dismissal) is as important as closing schools and increasing the number of beds in intensive care.
The country has not done too well on the first test – the toilet paper panic https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-51731422
The UK’s toilet paper is made locally and the rational thing to do is just buy as normal so as not to create a sudden shortage. But shops have been cleared of all supplies. In my area of West London, the shelves of local shops and supermarkets have been emptied immediately supplies are delivered for over a week now. The only tissues available today are the small pocket pacts with a price of £4 for a pack of two.
Today the Bath Marathon went ahead after your suggesting it didn’t. Running High Ltd, said it was safe.
I don’t think that there much truth around at present. By the way I’m one of those who could lose, or become very ill. I read somewhere about the infirm, lovely word. I’ve been called other things.
All right I don’t want to spend four months shut in my home, there are downs to that idea.
Now, has anyone heard the story about the Professor in the States who sold some phials?
We know it started in China, but where? There should be transparency or do those in Government think we are simply not able to think for ourselves.
I don’t think that you will like what I’ve written, I never write it to be liked.
One last point, are you left with anything else other than an illness that can make you very sick with pneumonia.
Helen,
the virus did start in China. The disease appears to have originated from a Wuhan seafood market where wild animals, including marmots, birds, rabbits, bats and snakes, are traded illegaly. Coronaviruses are known to jump from animals to humans, so it’s thought that the first people infected with the disease – a group primarily made up of stallholders from the seafood market – contracted it from contact with animals.
Although an initial analysis of the virus that causes Covid-19 suggested it was similar to viruses seen in snakes, the hunt for the animal source of Covid-19 is still on. A team of virologists at the Wuhan Institute for Virology released a detailed paper showing that the new coronaviruses’ genetic makeup is 96 per cent identical to that of a coronavirus found in bats, while an as-yet unpublished study argues that genetic sequences of coronavirus in pangolins are 99 per cent similar to the human virus. Some early cases of Covid-19, however, appear to have inflicted people with no link to the Wuhan market at all, suggesting that the initial route of human infection may pre-date the market cases.
The symptoms of coronaviruses are often mild – including runny noses, headaches, coughs and fevers. However, in some cases they lead to more serious respiratory tract illness including pneumonia and bronchitis. These can be particularly dangerous in older patients, or people who have existing health conditions, and this appears to be the case with Covid-19. Chinese health officials reported that two-thirds of the people who have died from Covid-19 were men, more than 80 per cent were over 60 years old and they typically had pre-existing health conditions such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
It looks as if most people will pass off the virus as a heavy cold or flu, but around 20% will become very ill and for around 1% the virus is fatal.
You don’t think that it could have started it’s journey at Harvard, some proffesser and two Chinese individuals, a court action, you know the rest.
I personally, don’t believe anything at present.
Your MP said no to the Bath Marathon, Running High Ltd, said yes, yes it was. Also, the owner of Running High Ltd, said it was safe, a well known personality, said he was going to fight the virus.
Actually, in Bath there has been someone very ill with virus. Does Mrs Hobhouse believe in herd mentality, I’m 71 years old have disability, I’m expendable!
“Flattening the curve is all (the Government) can do.”
Clearly not true. Let’s not run around the country stirring up apathy and complacency!
Protecting the most vulnerable though isolation is a second and very important thing they can also do. To be fair, the Government do seem at long last to be cottoning on to that idea.
Then – Yes, “flattening the curve” makes sense. Bur are we even trying our best to do that, if we keep the bars and restaurants open, while our more cautious neighbours close them down?
Joseph Bourke, with the “nudge” theorists, points out that persuading people to take the right actions is crucial, and that this might justify policies which seek to achieve effective persuasion. But – Does that always mean softly-softly?
Surely, if we keep our pubs open, we are not only providing a route for spreading infection, we are also encouraging people to believe that things are not really all that serious. We are encouraging people to be denialists, and to argue that the bad news might be exaggerated.
“You’ve kept the bar open, Prime Minister, because you like a drink yourself, and you know it won’t really hurt. I’ll go drinking too, and I won’t be fooled into fretting about washing my hands, or watching my sneezes. You’ve given my behaviour a nudge, Prime Minister, and that nudge is, to carry on as normal and stop worrying!”
@ Ruth Bright. Thank you kind lady.
A case of ‘Let’s all look at the Bright side of life’ ?
Andrew Daer:
“Complete lockdown means no-one gets immunity until a vaccine comes along, ”
That’s absurd. If you could successfully isolate every case (I gather that’s what you mean by “complete lockdown”) then after a month everyone who’s had the disease recovers to the point that they no longer can spread the living virus, and NO MORE PEOPLE GET INFECTED. That is the point. That is desirable.
This idea that people must get the disease is dangerous nonsense.
@ David-1
If you could successfully isolate every case ….. then after a month everyone who’s had the disease recovers to the point that they no longer can spread the living virus
OK but you’d have to seal the borders too. No-one comes in by ship or by air. Period.
It could have made sense to do that a couple of months ago when news of the virus first came out of China but, as far as I remember, no-one seriously proposed that course of action.
@ JoeB,
“It looks as if most people will pass off the virus as a heavy cold or flu, but around 20% will become very ill and for around 1% the virus is fatal”
I’m not sure where the 1% figure comes from. I’ve heard it often enough myself too but it looks little more than an optimistic guess.
84,000 recent worldwide closed cases include approx 6500 deaths which works out as approx 8%. So for there to be an actual 1% fatality rate these 84,000 cases must be only about 13% of the total. The rest must be mild cases which have gone undetected.
If not we’re in big trouble! So none of us should underestimate the seriousness of the outbreak.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?zarsrc=130
“I’m a great believer in experts”. As long as they agree with me.
@Peter Martin – I believe it was either the CMO or CSA who said that the true rate would be a significant multiple of the number of reported cases suggesting perhaps 10 or 20 times the number. Assuming this is correct (and it certainly feels like it is – at least 2 MPs out of 650 have the virus) it will have the effect of significantly changing the denominator.
It has been suggested, that the virus did start it’s being in the US. The Harvard situation, of what was sold, to the Chinese agent’s is interesting. There was a court action.
I still insist that the Government is slow to act. In Madrid my family face total shutdown. The only fly in the ointment, was British subjects on the streets who were worse from their alcohol intake. This is the failure of our Government and lack of control. As I said, on Sunday, Running High Ltd, was going to do the Bath Marathon. The organisation said so. What outcomes this will bring to the city will need time to show itself. There has been cases, Running High Ltd, we’re told!
Helen: There is absolutely zero evidence to support your suggestion that “the virus did start… in the US.” All the research points to its point of origin being Wuhan, China.
Everyone, please do not spread rumours whose factuality you cannot vouch for. There is enough misinformation going around without compounding it. Stick to the facts.
@David Allen “Surely, if we keep our pubs open, we are not only providing a route for spreading infection,”
Yea, and so shall the Introvert and Antisocial inherit the earth, for they shall be the ones who hath stayed at home.
Peter Martin, David-1:
“Complete lockdown means no-one gets immunity until a vaccine comes along, ”
My take on this – which is different from either of yours (!) is: This may be a true statement, but it is probably very far from the whole truth.
Yes, there is a risk that the majority of people in Wuhan, who did not catch the disease, remain at risk of catching the disease once “lockdown” is completely lifted and disease carriers bring it back to Wuhan. But, if that risk were a certainty, why haven’t we already seen a resurgence of cases, as China gets back to work?
There are various possibilities. One, that a majority of people anyway have natural immunity (or low susceptibility), so before and during Wuhan’s lockdown the disease largely ran its course and will not recur. Two, that during the disease outbreak all Wuhan residents were exposed to the virus, many at levels too low to cause disease, but high enough to trigger antibody production – which now provides them immunity.
Speculative? yes. But empirically, it looks as if what China did, worked, and may have worked for the long term too.
A lockdown, or at least measures as stringent as most of Europe, is a heads-you-win-tails-you-don’t-lose bet. If it doesn’t work, you have incurred economic costs and saved few lives. If it does work, you have saved a leck of a lot of lives. So, if you don’t make that bet, you need to be 100% sure that it’s a losing bet. Instead, the facts suggest that it is probably not a losing bet.
@David Allen
Thank you, please let us keep hearing more from you, you’re very articulate in your arguments and people may listen to you more than us hysterical types.
@David Allen
A Frank Witte on Facebook has a daughter in Shanghai, here’s what he says is happening as the lockdown ends.
The question is, are these measures sustainable, and will they work in preventing a renewed outbreak? (Let’s hope for the sake of the Chinese people that they do) But I doubt we’ll know the answer to that for months, perhaps not for a year.
https://www.facebook.com/wmycheung/posts/10157679857435709?comment_id=10157680096110709&reply_comment_id=10157685416575709
My daughter who lives in Shanghai is currently witnessing her city return to normal over the period of about a month of slowly loosening the ‘extreme’ measures. The new normal however means: When she leaves her compound for work, her temperature gets measured. When she enters her office, her temperature gets measured. When she leaves the office, her temperature gets measured. When she goes with colleagues for an after work drink in a pub (they’re open again), her temperature gets measured upon entrance and exit. When she arrives home in her compound … you guessed it. Her temperature gets measured.
As soon as they catch someone with temperature or cough, this person is sent to a fever clinic (not a hospital). There they check symptoms, test for rhino- and influenza-viruses. If those comeback negative but symptoms are there they do a CT of the lungs. If those comeback with pneumonia signs they test for covid19. If that comes back positive they go to the isolation-‘hospital’ where either they run through the illness without complications or, when they develop complications they go to an ICU.
It’s a shame, the Chinese Police warned the now deceased Doctor, against saying further about the virus.
You paint a perfect picture of China, I don’t quite believe that’s the case!
While endorsing all efforts to contain this pandemic, it is essential all measures are constantly reviewed to see if they’re still necessary. Parliament should have a standing committee to review this legislation and have the power to enact changes. A controlling government can’t be trusted to revoke all this new legislation as soon as is possible.