• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

scaramanga said:
There's no evidence we would. We clearly lacked the capacity and infrastructure for large scale testing.

The government has also made it clear that they consider testing to be a vital prerequisite to lifting the restrictions as the only alternative to their (far better) plan of immunity. So we'd have been stuck in lock down until a few weeks from now either way.
Click to expand...

The evidence is straight forward logic. Those dying today are people who were likely infected as a result of mingling taking place in that window where we might have locked down earlier.

Stopping exponential growth of a deadly virus in a population sooner rather than later is obvious, is it not?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
The evidence is straight forward logic. Those dying today are people who were likely infected as a result of mingling taking place in that window where we might have locked down earlier.

Stopping exponential growth of a deadly virus in a population sooner rather than later is obvious, is it not?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
It might save saved a few lives initially but the extended lockdown would have killed more businesses and would have had people ignoring the rules further in front of the availability of testing. Medium to long term I suspect that's far worse.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Which, as has been discussed, might be a worse starting point than a country that has had more people infected.

We have no way of treating or preventing transmission beyond what we've done. And it's safe to say that no country has starved the virus to death 400%.

If you make the assumption that people have immunity from being infected. Then greater infections equals greater protection as the fresh host pool is diminished.

I'm not saying earlier or later lockdown is better just that the above is a logical think thru.
Click to expand...

Essentially we moved from this model to the more successful control the virus model. Hence why we were slow with testing and other facilities - the government didn’t think it was important.

Hindsight makes everything easier to see. Swiftly locking down, testing and tracking would have saved many lives and provides a route out of lockdown. It gives governments greater control of the virus - tracking it - and populations greater confidence. Hence us switching tact.

You might argue that it’s all the same in the end - the virus will seep through societies - but far easier to manage and live life if governments take control early, limit the spread and control it as best we can. The alternative is a faster spread.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
scaramanga said:
It might save saved a few lives initially but the extended lockdown would have killed more businesses and would have had people ignoring the rules further in front of the availability of testing. Medium to long term I suspect that's far worse.
Click to expand...

Or would it have allowed us to open up sooner? Because the virus had not spread as far? Cap exponential growth sooner and you have less of a problem to contain.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
DTA said:
This government is clearly making it up as they go along. So that is not the case at all.

But testing and tracing is the correct method of opening up for business again moving forward.
Click to expand...
The govt had a good plan - the one that's currently working really well in Sweden.

The press and the public couldn't take it. When paired with a typically alarmist paper from Ferguson, they caved and went for this approach, which is certainly sub-optimal.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Essentially we moved from this model to the more successful control the virus model. Hence why we were slow with testing and other facilities - the government didn’t think it was important.

Hindsight makes everything easier to see. Swiftly locking down, testing and tracking would have saved many lives and provides a route out of lockdown. It gives governments greater control of the virus - tracking it - and populations greater confidence. Hence us switching tact.

You might argue that it’s all the same in the end - the virus will seep through societies - but far easier to manage and live life if governments take control early, limit the spread and control it as best we can. The alternative is a faster spread.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
Jeez you're hard work sometimes:D
 
DTA said:
This government is clearly making it up as they go along. So that is not the case at all.

But testing and tracing is the correct method of opening up for business again moving forward.
Click to expand...
It's the only method, so they're neither making it up and they aren't exactly employing critical thinking either.

And the other tracing part just won't work.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Yep and lockdown would have been the same length of time so business would have gone under sooner not saved.

If a business can’t survive 3 months lock down it can’t survive 3 months of lock down. That doesn’t matter if it started 1st Jan or 1st March.
Click to expand...
If you had started a lockdown with test and trace regime earlier then there was a significant chance that the infection would not have established in the community and the numbers infected would not have got so high. You could then slowly lift the lockdown region by region. Part of the lockdown would have included test and quarantine people coming in. It worked in South Korea and Taiwan. I wish politics would be removed from the analysis of this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
ricky2tricky4city said:
Which, as has been discussed, might be a worse starting point than a country that has had more people infected.

We have no way of treating or preventing transmission beyond what we've done. And it's safe to say that no country has starved the virus to death 400%.

If you make the assumption that people have immunity from being infected. Then greater infections equals greater protection as the fresh host pool is diminished.

I'm not saying earlier or later lockdown is better just that the above is a logical think thru.
Click to expand...
I don’t get this. You cannot establish herd immunity unless you are willing to sacrifice a lot of lives. So preventing people from becoming infected is better. Track the virus, isolate those infected and have varying degrees of locking down. It’s basic public health. No country has starved the virus 100% but many have kept both the infection rate and death rate much lower.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
The track and trace is doomed to failure.
Click to expand...

It will certainly be difficult with the numbers now infected. But it has to be part of a general prevention strategy. We have legislation to ensure it is enforced. Alongside that we also need the antibody test so we can determine who has been exposed to enable them to go to work.
 
Robspur12 said:
If you had started a lockdown with test and trace regime earlier then there was a significant chance that the infection would not have established in the community and the numbers infected would not have got so high. You could then slowly lift the lockdown region by region. Part of the lockdown would have included test and quarantine people coming in. It worked in South Korea and Taiwan. I wish politics would be removed from the analysis of this.
Click to expand...

No politics involved I just applied simple logic.

You would be talking the odd week not the months needed for business to survive
 
Grays_1890 said:
For now
Click to expand...
You almost sound like you would be happy for death rates in the other countries to go up so that it can excuse the way the government have handled it here! That is odd. I will say the government had a bloody tough job like all governments but they have made some huge errors imho. They have also sadly played politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Robspur12 said:
You almost sound like you would be happy for death rates in the other countries to go up so that it can excuse the way the government have handled it here! That is odd. I will say the government had a bloody tough job like all governments but they have made some huge errors imho. They have also sadly played politics.
Click to expand...

That’s utter crap I just have a belief how the virus will play out thats is non party political.

If I was being political I wouldn’t defend the government as I was all for a Sweden response, they haven’t gone down that route so If I was going to do anything I would stick the knife in the government to follow my own bias
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back