Coronavirus

[Hootnow]

Probably emailed the same junior minister as the EU did.

You guys cannot be serious with this? Are you genuinely this blinded by hatred?

First, we had ministers saying that we didn't join the scheme because it was an EU scheme and we are no longer part of the EU. Then when they get a backlash, even from some pro-Brexit people, they come up with an excuse even Redknapp would be ashamed to use. I imagine fresh from fiddling his accounts, his dog was also responding to government emails.

Then it turns out...that high level EU business is not solely conducted by email but that there were meetings. That our officials were involved in.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...KMFnWFQyQcUXC_PWgSxqsIWnZ2BKd9bf2FnsUIprUSERU

What. A. Surprise.

Probably didn't want ventilators from that scheme anyway, some dirty Europeans would probably have touched it at some point I'd imagine.

 

[Parklaner81]

Reacting to the media, public opinion and NHS mainly.

"Science" this thing we supposedly defer all rational logic and judgment to, is not what it seems. There isn't a science room you walk into and get 'the definitive answer'. Science is better at analysis of past events, and when you boil what 'science' means in this context it is someone scratching around with whatever data available, trying to come to a logical conclusion (no different to anyone else).

More useful is a war-like approach to crisis preparation. Longer-term, to improve testing, find drugs and vaccines, science is the only answer. But to ensure the right emergency approach, for example, to get the logistical task of testing people working, an army-like or private enterprise-like approach is probably more effective than a professor.

So let me try and get this straight. You're saying that the government weren't reacting to scientific advice at all, but then go on dedicate about 95% of your response to explaining why following such advice would be entirely the wrong path to take...?

What a confused post.

 

[scaramanga]

If you were dying, and this drug has been found to save people’s lives in countries that are ‘ahead of our curve’ would you like to try it?

I’m not arguing rights or wrongs. There is a pattern with the government reacting to the media. First it reacted to change to a containment approach. Then to stats and outrage re. Ventilators and testing. Next, will it be the use of this and another drug which has had some success?

Point is, in such a crisis being ahead of events, preparing rather than reacting, saves many lives and many billions.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

How any individual feels is entirely irrelevant to large scale decision making like this.

Those drugs are already available if an individual wants to buy them and take them at their own risk.

 

[scaramanga]

Reacting to the media, public opinion and NHS mainly.

"Science" this thing we supposedly defer all rational logic and judgment to, is not what it seems. There isn't a science room you walk into and get 'the definitive answer'. Science is better at analysis of past events, and when you boil what 'science' means in this context it is someone scratching around with whatever data available, trying to come to a logical conclusion (no different to anyone else).

More useful is a war-like approach to crisis preparation. Longer-term, to improve testing, find drugs and vaccines, science is the only answer. But to ensure the right emergency approach, for example, to get the logistical task of testing people working, an army-like or private enterprise-like approach is probably more effective than a professor.

General life rule, it's not a good idea to find oneself in an argument where one is referring to science as "science." That goes double when one finds oneself on the same side of the argument as Donald Trump.

 

[scaramanga]

You guys cannot be serious with this? Are you genuinely this blinded by hatred?

First, we had ministers saying that we didn't join the scheme because it was an EU scheme and we are no longer part of the EU. Then when they get a backlash, even from some pro-Brexit people, they come up with an excuse even Redknapp would be ashamed to use. I imagine fresh from fiddling his accounts, his dog was also responding to government emails.

Then it turns out...that high level EU business is not solely conducted by email but that there were meetings. That our officials were involved in.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...KMFnWFQyQcUXC_PWgSxqsIWnZ2BKd9bf2FnsUIprUSERU

What. A. Surprise.

Probably didn't want ventilators from that scheme anyway, some dirty Europeans would probably have touched it at some point I'd imagine.

That doesn't surprise me at all - I posted in this very thread that I didn't believe the excuse.

How can we evaluate whether or not it would have been a good idea to join the scheme without knowing more about the outcomes? How many ventilators were the EU buying? How many would we have got? Was the project, like all other EU projects, one where the richer countries were expected to subsidise the poorer ones? Would it have resulted in the UK getting more and cheaper ventilators than going our own way? What would the EU want in return for this and how much would it weaken our stance in later negotiations?

All of this, I suspect, will have informed the decision on whether or not to join the scheme. The only thing we do know is that if the EU is saying one thing publicly, the truth is something else.

 

[SpurMeUp]

General life rule, it's not a good idea to find oneself in an argument where one is referring to science as "science." That goes double when one finds oneself on the same side of the argument as Donald Trump.

You keep mentioning Trump. Rather odd. I'm sure he's said many things, many of which rational people would agree with. You were accused as showing the same sociopathic approach as Hitler and Stalin, I'll take Trump. Science in inverted commas, because a few experts in a room trying to agree on an approach with limited data, may not be classical science as we know it.

 

[Hootnow]

That doesn't surprise me at all - I posted in this very thread that I didn't believe the excuse.

How can we evaluate whether or not it would have been a good idea to join the scheme without knowing more about the outcomes? How many ventilators were the EU buying? How many would we have got? Was the project, like all other EU projects, one where the richer countries were expected to subsidise the poorer ones? Would it have resulted in the UK getting more and cheaper ventilators than going our own way? What would the EU want in return for this and how much would it weaken our stance in later negotiations?

All of this, I suspect, will have informed the decision on whether or not to join the scheme. The only thing we do know is that if the EU is saying one thing publicly, the truth is something else.

Because, with our lying, ideologically extreme government, they would have absolutely revelled in telling the country how brick the EU scheme was and how the EU were again trying to steal money from the UK, provide us with subpar ventilators. And the country, in its current fervor, would have absolutely lapped it up.

As we can see in here, where people are doing this anyway, regardless of facts.

There's no upside to the government's current approach where they've had to basically admit they were lying and said they'll reconsider next round of procurement.

Yet only one side has been shown up for lying here (and to its own population) and it isn't the EU.

 

[Grays_1890]

Reacting to the media, public opinion and NHS mainly.

"Science" this thing we supposedly defer all rational logic and judgment to, is not what it seems. There isn't a science room you walk into and get 'the definitive answer'. Science is better at analysis of past events, and when you boil what 'science' means in this context it is someone scratching around with whatever data available, trying to come to a logical conclusion (no different to anyone else).

More useful is a war-like approach to crisis preparation. Longer-term, to improve testing, find drugs and vaccines, science is the only answer. But to ensure the right emergency approach, for example, to get the logistical task of testing people working, an army-like or private enterprise-like approach is probably more effective than a professor.

The containment method changed because the Science changed no? Like someone said yesterday people who change their opinion on scientific fact not opinion.

As for finding drugs and vaccines is time sensitive on the Chinese from day zero and when that actually was to then when they decided to release the coding to the WHO. In all likelihood that grey area put us on the back foot straight away.

 

[SpurMeUp]

So let me try and get this straight. You're saying that the government weren't reacting to scientific advice at all, but then go on dedicate about 95% of your response to explaining why following such advice would be entirely the wrong path to take...?

What a confused post.

You didn't manage to get it straight .

I was saying your belief in science as some kind of cure-all solution, is an oversimplification. Furthermore, I didn't say the government wasn't interested in science, rather that they are reacting to a range of factors (when the most effective leadership involves preparing and staying ahead of the curve). NHS patient numbers, the media, and public opinion are more important than scientific advisors. Presumably, 'science' determined the herd immunity approach. Then reality and public opinion hit home, and the government reacted.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Are they telling us how many people are going on to ventilators' and coming out the othere side.

Or is that information best not public.

 

[Hootnow]

The containment method changed because the Science changed no? Like someone said yesterday people who change their opinion on scientific fact not opinion.

As for finding drugs and vaccines is time sensitive on the Chinese from day zero and when that actually was to then when they decided to release the coding to the WHO. In all likelihood that grey area put us on the back foot straight away.

Out of interest, without looking it up, when do you think the Chinese released the genetic sequence of the SARS-Covid2 virus? And how long after they'd sequenced it themselves do you think they released it?

I'd also be interested to see when people think the Chinese first involved the WHO in their response?

 

[Grays_1890]

You didn't manage to get it straight .

I was saying your belief in science as some kind of cure-all solution, is an oversimplification. Furthermore, I didn't say the government wasn't interested in science, rather that they are reacting to a range of factors (when the most effective leadership involves preparing and staying ahead of the curve). NHS patient numbers, the media, and public opinion are more important than scientific advisors. Presumably, 'science' determined the herd immunity approach. Then reality and public opinion hit home, and the government reacted.

Do you think? Science once finding out more and taking into account our own circumstance advised the change no? There are more facts to suggest the Government changed its stance with scientist input which changed as it found out more facts than it did because the Media told them to? There was not a public outcry either, people staying out in vast numbers on the first weekend of lock down in millions suggests that people would have taken to herd mentality if they were told to and scientific evidence backed it up. I am adhering to Lock DOwn because the Government told me to, not because I thought I knew better, if I was allowed back to work tomorrow I would go too.

 

[Grays_1890]

Out of interest, without looking it up, when do you think the Chinese released the genetic sequence of the SARS-Covid2 virus? And how long after they'd sequenced it themselves do you think they released it?

I'd also be interested to see when people think the Chinese first involved the WHO in their response?

I read the WHO report the other day, it was early Jan, 10th - 15th time. First case was admitted end of December. When you look at the shenanigans surrounding the first reporting and the Dr who reported it I am hugely sceptical about it all and with some cause.

Out of interest at which day from when China first knew about how infectious this was aka 31st December did it take them to suspend all outward travel to the rest of the world? Genuine question as I don't have that date but it is surely a key moment.

Whoever has patient zero is the most important cog in the wheel, first to know, first to explore the science, first to inform the world, first to know the dangers, first to react. Surely based on the same expectations placed on the world including Boris, once China knew how bad this was which should have been early on they should have locked the country down? Based on fact there are reports on this page that people flew back themselves knowing about it shows they did not. Not good really.

 

[Hootnow]

Do you think? Science once finding out more and taking into account our own circumstance advised the change no? There are more facts to suggest the Government changed its stance with scientist input which changed as it found out more facts than it did because the Media told them to? There was not a public outcry either, people staying out in vast numbers on the first weekend of lock down in millions suggests that people would have taken to herd meteorology if they were told to and scientific evidence backed it up. I am adhering to Lock DOwn because the Government told me to, not because I thought I knew better, if I was allowed back to work tomorrow I would go too.

I think in fairness to the government (and Boris) here, they have been trying to follow the Scientific advice. The problems are this advice is changing based on the circumstances, it isn't uniform and, to some extent, there is I believe a Western arrogance where we believe we can't learn anything from the Asian countries, who have had some experience with these measures before.

I also agree that some people are still not listening, even to this point.

 

[Hootnow]

I read the WHO report the other day, it was early Jan, 10th - 15th time. First case was admitted end of December. When you look at the shenanigans surrounding the first reporting and the Dr who reported it I am hugely sceptical about it all and with some cause.

Indeed. So they mapped it for the first time on Jan 9th and released it to the world Jan 12th. They got the WHO involved on 31st December for pneumonia cases of unknown origin. The first patient only died on January 11th. On 20th January, the Chinese confirmed internationally that the virus can transmit from person to person and the WHO declared it “public health emergency of international concern” on the same day.

Absolute worst case scenario, we've had the virus structure and been told it can transmit from person to person, as well as had the WHO declare it an international PH emergency. By 20th January. China locks down Wuhan 23rd January.

Even if we're assuming that the Chinese are lying about the numbers (I am pretty sure they are) and that the local Hubei branch of government initially attempted to silence a whistle blower (they did, as in fairness has our government with multiple doctor whistleblowers in the NHS) and that the virus started even earlier and they knew about it(possible).

We have still had since, at the very worst, January 20th, at worst Jan 23rd, to realise the gravity of the situation and start reacting to it.

Do you feel that we did? What were we doing in late January to prepare for a serious respiratory illness in the UK?

 

[scaramanga]

Because, with our lying, ideologically extreme government, they would have absolutely revelled in telling the country how brick the EU scheme was and how the EU were again trying to steal money from the UK, provide us with subpar ventilators. And the country, in its current fervor, would have absolutely lapped it up.

As we can see in here, where people are doing this anyway, regardless of facts.

There's no upside to the government's current approach where they've had to basically admit they were lying and said they'll reconsider next round of procurement.

Yet only one side has been shown up for lying here (and to its own population) and it isn't the EU.

I'm not saying for a second that our government are honest - they've proven that in this case.

But given what we know about everything the EU has ever done, we're probably better off not subsidising everyone else's equipment. Of course they'll "consider" the next round, circumstances may be different at that point - so might the offer. That doesn't mean it was wrong to refuse what was initially on offer.

 

[Grays_1890]

Indeed. So they mapped it for the first time on Jan 9th and released it to the world Jan 12th. They got the WHO involved on 31st December for pneumonia cases of unknown origin. The first patient only died on January 11th. On 20th January, the Chinese confirmed internationally that the virus can transmit from person to person and the WHO declared it “public health emergency of international concern” on the same day.

Absolute worst case scenario, we've had the virus structure and been told it can transmit from person to person, as well as had the WHO declare it an international PH emergency. By 20th January. China locks down Wuhan 23rd January.

Even if we're assuming that the Chinese are lying about the numbers (I am pretty sure they are) and that the local Hubei branch of government initially attempted to silence a whistle blower (they did, as in fairness has our government with multiple doctor whistleblowers in the NHS) and that the virus started even earlier and they knew about it(possible).

We have still had since, at the very worst, January 20th, at worst Jan 23rd, to realise the gravity of the situation and start reacting to it.

Do you feel that we did? What were we doing in late January to prepare for a serious respiratory illness in the UK?

Ok so to flip that on its head, how come China were allowing international travel to and from the country into late Feb when they knew the gravity of this before anyone? They could have enforced it on airlines from the World a now land policy? They only locked down Wuhan on 23rd Jan, the horse had bolted then, that was not for the UK to know, that was for China to know, it was an issue they had the greater data on, the fact they were allowing flights to land was later than the first death is terrible. Thats not tit for tat that is fact based on dates and reaction rates expected by countries 5000 miles away from patient Zero

 

[SpurMeUp]

I am at work so can’t reply now.

Does anyone else find it funny that those who backed Brexit, ignored logical expert projections, seem to now believe in a mythical science entity that makes all decisions for you?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Hootnow]

Ok so to flip that on its head, how come China were allowing international travel to and from the country into late Feb when they knew the gravity of this before anyone? They could have enforced it on airlines from the World a now land policy? They only locked down Wuhan on 23rd Jan, the horse had bolted then, that was not for the UK to know, that was for China to know, it was an issue they had the greater data on, the fact they were allowing flights to land was later than the first death is terrible. Thats not tit for tat that is fact based on dates and reaction rates expected by countries 5000 miles away from patient Zero

Because they're hypocritical clams? Same way they cried when countries blocked flights from China initially and are now doing the same essentially for flights from Europe?

Plus realistically, no country is going to lock down their entire country to the world pretty much unless they're forced to by the world.

I'm interested in why you think the outcomes so far of Italy, USA, Spain and Italy have been so different from Singapore, Taiwan, HK, SK, Australia. Did they have some information that we didn't? Do we have closer ties to China than they do?

Or perhaps we were just shambolically prepared and didn't think to act when we still had the chance? We didn't have double digit number of cases in the UK until 1st March. We didn't even hit 100 cases total until 5th March. We had more than enough time to prepare, even if we assume that China hid everything from the beginning.


This is also all irrelevant to what you initially said, which is that China's hiding of the virus structure slowed things down. They released that pretty quickly.

And again, I am not defending China's initial response. I just wholly disagree that we did not have enough time to prepare. We did. We chose not to.

Oh and the Americans have just fired the whistleblower in the Navy who pointed out the protections in the navy were not enough. Hospitals have been firing doctors as well for noting that the PPE they're given is not adequate. And some trusts in the UK have already very strongly suggested to their staff that they should not talk out about PPE availability to avoid any consequences...

 

[DTA]

Ok so to flip that on its head, how come China were allowing international travel to and from the country into late Feb when they knew the gravity of this before anyone? They could have enforced it on airlines from the World a now land policy? They only locked down Wuhan on 23rd Jan, the horse had bolted then, that was not for the UK to know, that was for China to know, it was an issue they had the greater data on, the fact they were allowing flights to land was later than the first death is terrible. Thats not tit for tat that is fact based on dates and reaction rates expected by countries 5000 miles away from patient Zero

The difference for me at least. Is the fact that china is origin of a previously unknown virus. So they were learning literally from scratch. They didnt have a one or two month warning.

As soon as I saw that china locked down Wuhan, I knew this was deadly serious. So from the 23rd of January the uk government has no excuses. Prior to that fair play yeah... but from the 23rd onwards no.

None of the above is to absolve china of its responsibility in this... those wet markets are a disgrace to the human race. And the initial cover up by Wuhan officials has directly led to the number of deaths there and world wide. And are almost certainly a result of their wider political system... however once the central government got involved they done very well for their state and the world. They brought us some time and gave us a system to follow.... which we subsequently wasted