"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2020 12:23, Spike wrote:
On 09/04/2020 09:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/04/2020 09:38, Spike wrote:

For those over 60 and those with underlying health issues
(especially those who have both risk factors) who want to avoid the
virus, this is going to run and run and will mean a very long period of
isolation

So nothing new there then? :-)

Fraid not :-(

The drip-feed of infection vectors by relaxing/re-imposing lockdown
measures ensures it's the vulnerable who would be wise to pay the long
game...


You missed my point. I live alone these days, and see on the average day
no one at all.

me neither

except when I go shopping

and I can't avoid going shopping

One delivery of online grocery a month (even if I were on the qualified
list) simply isn't sufficient to keep fresh goods topped up

tim

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:
To be extended for another month at least.
I'm running out of small projects/repair/maintenance jobs around the
house.

Fortunately we have a big garden and a veggie plot. It's a busy time of
year in the garden.

Must be hell for flat dwellers.


Extended is misleading.

Did anyone sensible expect it to last only a month?


It seems that some did, yes

IMHO they are idiots, but the do exists

tim

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2020 08:59, Brian Reay wrote:
harry wrote:
To be extended for another month at least.
I'm running out of small projects/repair/maintenance jobs around the
house.

Fortunately we have a big garden and a veggie plot. It's a busy time of
year in the garden.

Must be hell for flat dwellers.


Extended is misleading.

Did anyone sensible expect it to last only a month?

The media have been twisting, exaggerating, and distorting things from
day
one- this extending nonsense is just another example.



What seems to have been lost is that the lockdown will not decrease the
number of cases. It is simply there to save the NHS from melt down by
spreading the cases over time. Personally I think the eye watering cost to
the economy would have been better spent pouring money into the NHS.

except that no amount of money can magic up:

new buildings
new equipment
extra trained staff

in days

It's the old, expecting 9 women to make a baby in a month trick

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Broadback wrote:
Personally I think the eye watering cost
to the economy would have been better spent pouring money into the NHS.

Maybe. Had it been done years ago.

You don't get more trained staff and suitable equipment etc within days of
pouring in money - no matter how much.

I'm pretty sure once this is over, most will still want the lowest
possible taxation etc over decent spending on the NHS.

Yep

there's already demands by idiots for tax cuts to "stimulate" the economy
when this is over

what when we really need is for tax increases to help fund sufficient
infrastructure for next time

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2020 13:01, NY wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2020 08:59, Brian Reay wrote:
harry wrote:
To be extended for another month at least.
I'm running out of small projects/repair/maintenance jobs around the
house.

Fortunately we have a big garden and a veggie plot. It's a busy time
of
year in the garden.

Must be hell for flat dwellers.


Extended is misleading.

Did anyone sensible expect it to last only a month?

The media have been twisting, exaggerating, and distorting things from
day
one- this extending nonsense is just another example.

What seems to have been lost is that the lockdown will not decrease the
number of cases. It is simply there to save the NHS from melt down by
spreading the cases over time. Personally I think the eye watering cost
to the economy would have been better spent pouring money into the NHS.

Will there also be a tendency for there to be fewer cases overall because
some family groups will get it but then not be able to pass it on to
anyone else so the virus will die out for that group? If all households
are isolated from each other, there will be a point at which none of them
are still able to pass the virus on to anyone else, even if some of the
members of the household suffer and then either recover or die.

I think it is more likely that there will be the same number of
*infections* - essentially until we reach 40% who have survived it or have
been vaccinated whatever - ,

I'm not alone in thinking you are wrong here.

The isolation policy's best result is one of trying to make the virus die
out. The trick will be not reopening our doors to outside risks of
re-infection too soon.

tim

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Broadback wrote:
Personally I think the eye watering cost
to the economy would have been better spent pouring money into the NHS.

Maybe. Had it been done years ago.

You don't get more trained staff and suitable equipment etc within days of
pouring in money - no matter how much.

I'm pretty sure once this is over, most will still want the lowest
possible taxation etc over decent spending on the NHS. And of course
paying our key workers properly. Giving them a a round of applause doesn't
hurt the pocket.

Back in the 1950s we had an American student for a year. Since it took 5
days to get home and 5 days to get back, he spent the Christmas holidays in
the UK. He stayed with us over New Year. The newspaper was full of the New
Year Honours list and he asked what this was, so I explained. "What a
wonderful idea." he said " Back home we have to give them money!"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:13:59 +1000, John_j, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Wuhan has done it in just 3. It remains to be seen how that works out.

Absolute bull****, you mentally insane auto-contradicting senile moron!

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
his particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:06:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:Rod Speed
wrote:

FLUSH the abnormal senile bull**** artist's latest senile bull****

....and nothing's left!

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
his particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:46:29 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But it remains to be seen

What we'll see is YOU trolling on these groups like there was no tomorrow,
you subnormal 86-year-old cretinous senile IDIOT!

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:47:01 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the 86-year-old troll's latest troll****

....and much better air in here!

--
Richard about senile Rodent:
"Rod Speed, a bare faced pig and ignorant ****."
MID:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 21:44:10 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another load of the incontinent senile cretin's endless troll****

....and much better air in here again!
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:57:03 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Of course 'it remains to be seen'. I don't think you're
contributing to anything by (repeatedly) saying that.

The difference being that you are a trolling piece of ****, whereas he is
not!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:59:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But its very far from clear that

What IS clear is that you are a clinically insane trolling piece of senile
****!

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
Quite clearly lockdown is continuing in Wales - Drakeford said so in
no uncertain terms. Though minimum diration has yet to be announced.

Just who was the idiot who thought a review on Easter Monday made
sense?

The virus is at different stages of its progression in the UK. Same as
in other countries. With London being some weeks ahead of others.

Chances are they'll ease restrictions on a regional basis. Anything
else would be silly.

why?

They will ease restrictions when they are certain the local NHS can cope.

how are you going to stop leakage across a boundary if rules are
different each side of it?

and is it really fair to say that residents of Manchester can go on
leisure trips to the Pennines but residents of Leeds can't

Why I said ease. Not abolish.







--
*Always drink upstream from the herd *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
Quite clearly lockdown is continuing in Wales - Drakeford said so in no
uncertain terms. Though minimum diration has yet to be announced.

Just who was the idiot who thought a review on Easter Monday made sense?

The virus is at different stages of its progression in the UK. Same as in
other countries. With London being some weeks ahead of others.

Chances are they'll ease restrictions on a regional basis.

Difficult to do tho with holiday homes and where you
can have a big ****up or sport event or even a normal
pub without hordes going there from still locked down
areas so they can do that stuff again and then return
home and bring the infection back with them again.

Anything else
would be silly.

Don’t agree.

--
*A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"tim..." wrote in message
...


"John_j" wrote in message
...


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:12:00 +0100, Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\) wrote:

What I want to know is this, after its all apparently over, surely
unlocking will just allow people in from abroad and it will all start
again.

The virus is in the general population, even with the borders sealed
it'll sneak back in from abroad. The borders can't be effectively
sealed anyway, with truckers coming and going, or if not the actual
human truckers the trucks.

The only way to go is to kind of control things so people still get it
but the number who die can be controlled by not overwhelming the health
services as it happens.

Yep, relax one or two of the most restrictive rules and watch the new
cases rate very closely, if it looks to begin taking off again, bang
the restrictions back on. It will be interesting to see what happens
in Wuhan over the next two weeks. Have they stayed in lockdown for
two weeks with no new (reported....) cases for that entire two weeks?
They still have the "import problem" though.

Once the new cases rate is very low more test 'n track and enforced
isolation might work to contain it (as it sort of did early on) but
with the virus so widely spread in the global population it'll sneak
back in from outside.

Anybody who thinks things will be back to normal, ie pubs, restraunts
etc open, and large gatherings allowed, in much less than five months
doesn't understand the problem.

Wuhan has done it in just 3. It remains to be seen how that works out.

you really think that whatever we are told, will be true?

There will always be enough reporting on what is
actually happening even in that gung ho police state.
Mate of mine's chinese wife has her parents there and
they barely managed to get out of there on 31-Jan,
they were back there for chinese new year.

And her employer back here, also chinese, quite literally
returned from Wuhan in mid Fed, deliberately flouting
the ban on anyone coming here from there. And since
he was back in china for chinese new year too, obviously
has been communicating with his relos back there since.

With modern communications, there isnt much even a
gung ho police state can do to stop hard info getting out.
from

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:03:36 +1000, John_j, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the nym-shifting senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

03:03??? LOL Is your unbearable loneliness not letting you sleep in again,
you abnormal senile cretin?

--
John to the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

"tim..." wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Broadback wrote:
Personally I think the eye watering cost
to the economy would have been better spent pouring money into the NHS.

Maybe. Had it been done years ago.

You don't get more trained staff and suitable equipment etc within days
of
pouring in money - no matter how much.

I'm pretty sure once this is over, most will still want the lowest
possible taxation etc over decent spending on the NHS.

Yep

there's already demands by idiots for tax cuts to "stimulate" the economy
when this is over

what when we really need is for tax increases to help fund sufficient
infrastructure for next time

Problem is that its impossible to know what infrastructure
will be needed next time. It was impossible to predict what
would be needed in advance with the spanish flu, swine flu,
ebola, SARS. and HIV/AIDS. And not even feasible to have
massive great multi story hospitals used for decades so
they are available to turn on when this virus shows up.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:33:50 +1000, John_j, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the abnormal senile pest's latest troll**** unread

03:33, you clinically insane trolling 86-year-old ARSEHOLE? LOL

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:53:09 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the abnormal trolling 86-year-old sow's latest troll****

03:53??? So you've been up and trolling for almost an hour, yet again, just
like EVERY NIGHT, you senile cretin! LOL

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On 09/04/2020 13:24, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Will there also be a tendency for there to be fewer cases overall
because some family groups will get it but then not be able to pass
it on to anyone else so the virus will die out for that group? If all
households are isolated from each other, there will be a point at
which none of them are still able to pass the virus on to anyone
else, even if some of the members of the household suffer and then
either recover or die.

I think it is more likely that there will be the same number of
*infections* - essentially until we reach 40% who have survived it or
have been vaccinated whatever - , but that the *severity* of the
infection as well as the rate over time will be reduced with lockdown.

That is, it will be a slower *and* *less severe* peak towards herd
immunity.

If people are quarantined for long enough, will there be anyone left who
can still infect anyone else? Even without artificially-induced
antibodies via a vaccination. Maybe to achieve this would require too
long a lockdown.

I think you dont get proper herd immunity until the infection rate drops
to zero which means that the chances of someone with it meeting someone
who has never been exposed are essentially nil.
THAT takes a hell of a lot of people getting it.

The problem is that many have it and hardly feel it. I had a slight
cough, aching muscles and felt a teeny bit feverish several weeks ago,
but that is pretty normal with COPD anyway. Did I have it? Who knows?


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
Quite clearly lockdown is continuing in Wales - Drakeford said so in
no uncertain terms. Though minimum diration has yet to be announced.

Just who was the idiot who thought a review on Easter Monday made
sense?

The virus is at different stages of its progression in the UK. Same as
in other countries. With London being some weeks ahead of others.

Chances are they'll ease restrictions on a regional basis. Anything
else would be silly.

why?

They will ease restrictions when they are certain the local NHS can cope.

They can never be certain of that and may find that the restrictions
are doing such a good job of stopping the spread of infection that
they continue with that and see the virus stamped out in the country.

how are you going to stop leakage across a boundary if rules are
different each side of it?

and is it really fair to say that residents of Manchester can go on
leisure trips to the Pennines but residents of Leeds can't

Why I said ease. Not abolish.







--
*Always drink upstream from the herd *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think you dont get proper herd immunity until the infection rate drops
to zero ...

Mean, over a population, infection rate of less than one from someone
infected. Obviously the lower the infection rate the faster it dies
out.

... which means that the chances of someone with it meeting someone
who has never been exposed are essentially nil. THAT takes a hell of a
lot of people getting it.

It's reckoned that SARS-CoV-2 needs to infect 60 to 80% of the
population for "herd immunity" to start having an effect. There is a
mathematical relationship between the natural infection rate and the
percentage of population that needs to be infected for the herd
effect to start having an influence.

The problem is that many have it and hardly feel it.

Well quite, I had a "funny throat" about the start of lockdown. Felt
a bit "lumpy" but not sore or tickly, little bit of a cough.
Obviously something but what? I doubt it was Covid-19.

Until there is a decent anti-body test available and significant
numbers of people are tested we don't really know how widespread
SARS-CoV-2 actually is.

All we can do is watch the hospital admissions and once they are
showing a consistent fall for a couple of weeks, lift some of the
more draconion ones and keep a close eye on the admissions. If they
start to exponentialy rise bang the restrictions back on. The tricky
bit is spotting early enough the difference between the rise that
will occur when the restrictions are lifted and a rise that means
it's starting to take off again.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 04:59:09 +1000, John_j, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile Ozzietard's latest troll**** unread

04:59? LOL If you had ANY shame, you'd at least TRY to hide your MISERY. But
you are so miserable, you will never be able hide it!

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On 09/04/2020 15:01:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
Quite clearly lockdown is continuing in Wales - Drakeford said so in
no uncertain terms. Though minimum diration has yet to be announced.

Just who was the idiot who thought a review on Easter Monday made
sense?

The virus is at different stages of its progression in the UK. Same as
in other countries. With London being some weeks ahead of others.

Chances are they'll ease restrictions on a regional basis. Anything
else would be silly.

why?

They will ease restrictions when they are certain the local NHS can cope.

They will only know that when they have tested sufficient of the
population for numbers of those infected. We have no idea what
proportion of the population are infected or the rate of new infections.

The real question is when will we know the NHS can cope?

Lets be optimistic, lets assume 2% of the population will need admission
to a hospital before herd immunity kicks in sufficiently. That's 1
million patients. Each one that survives, probably 1/2, will need a bed
for 1 or 2 weeks. That's a lot of beds, or a very long time to reach
herd immunity.

My numbers may be off, but that should paint a picture of how this might
pan out.



gto a hosptial

Spike was thinking very hard :
Instead, they are talking this morning of relaxing restrictions for the
18 to 40 age group so they can get back to work, suggesting that the
economy is more important than the lives that support it.

Not what I heard this morning, they were saying it was more about
getting that age group back to work, because that group is the group
which might suffer long term mental issues from being confined to home.

Broadback explained :
What seems to have been lost is that the lockdown will not decrease the
number of cases. It is simply there to save the NHS from melt down by
spreading the cases over time. Personally I think the eye watering cost to
the economy would have been better spent pouring money into the NHS.

I know they are doing a pretty good job creating the Nightingales, but
general they cannot simply and instantly magic up hospitals, equipment,
doctors and nurses. They have a lead time, particularly the latter
staff, measured in years. They virus is here - NOW, the need to take
measures is here and NOW. Lockdown is the only way to control it at
this moment.

Dave Liquorice formulated the question :
All we can do is watch the hospital admissions and once they are
showing a consistent fall for a couple of weeks, lift some of the
more draconion ones and keep a close eye on the admissions. If they
start to exponentialy rise bang the restrictions back on. The tricky
bit is spotting early enough the difference between the rise that
will occur when the restrictions are lifted and a rise that means
it's starting to take off again.

The big problem with that, is the long lag between lifting restrictions
and the infections appearing.

Sensible would be system of lifting restrictions in a closely confined
area, as a test. In Italy they have isolated a village for experimental
purposes.

Harry Bloomfield, Esq. wrote:
Broadback explained :
What seems to have been lost is that the lockdown will not decrease the
number of cases. It is simply there to save the NHS from melt down by
spreading the cases over time. Personally I think the eye watering cost to
the economy would have been better spent pouring money into the NHS.

I know they are doing a pretty good job creating the Nightingales, but
general they cannot simply and instantly magic up hospitals, equipment,
doctors and nurses. They have a lead time, particularly the latter
staff, measured in years. They virus is here - NOW, the need to take
measures is here and NOW. Lockdown is the only way to control it at
this moment.


The extra staff are a mix of €˜returners, €˜early graduates ( for example
Doctors normally all start on a Wednesday in the Summer- I should remember,
our middle daughter was one a few years back, she is now a Registrar) but a
number have been pushed through, ditto nurses), other workers and
volunteers for the none medical jobs have been recruited - including from
areas like the airlines.

Im not suggesting the above will stay in the NHS - obviously the early
graduates hopefully will- but they will man the extra hospitals/ fill
shortages etc.

The planning, response etc has been quite impressive.

The way the volunteer system runs (GoodSam) is really quite impressive.

Harry Bloomfield, Esq. wrote:
Dave Liquorice formulated the question :
All we can do is watch the hospital admissions and once they are
showing a consistent fall for a couple of weeks, lift some of the
more draconion ones and keep a close eye on the admissions. If they
start to exponentialy rise bang the restrictions back on. The tricky
bit is spotting early enough the difference between the rise that
will occur when the restrictions are lifted and a rise that means
it's starting to take off again.

The big problem with that, is the long lag between lifting restrictions
and the infections appearing.

Sensible would be system of lifting restrictions in a closely confined
area, as a test. In Italy they have isolated a village for experimental
purposes.


I expect that the so-called Immunity Passport will be rolled out toot
sweet, so those of us that are economically productive and have shrugged
off a dose of Covid-19 already can get back to our usual routines. It
doesnt take a close study of the Tory mindset to know that theyre much
more keen about getting the economy going than keeping pensioners alive;
the next General Election is too far away for the loss of potential voters
to over-ride the cost of lockdown. And many of those that will die from
this wouldnt make it to the next election anyway, so its even less of a
concern for your common or garden Tory politico.

Of course, therell still be millions of Boomers on lockdown for months to
come while they wait for a vaccine. Theyll kick up an almighty fuss about
€œsnowflake millennials€� being allowed to do what they like again, but the
alternative is they roll the dice and catch the plague. A big risk for that
demographic.

--
M0TEY // STC // #SaveOurNHS

On 10/04/2020 10:42, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 07:36:17 +0000, Stephen Cole wrote:

Harry Bloomfield, Esq. wrote:
Dave Liquorice formulated the question :
All we can do is watch the hospital admissions and once they are
showing a consistent fall for a couple of weeks, lift some of the more
draconion ones and keep a close eye on the admissions. If they start
to exponentialy rise bang the restrictions back on. The tricky bit is
spotting early enough the difference between the rise that will occur
when the restrictions are lifted and a rise that means it's starting
to take off again.

The big problem with that, is the long lag between lifting restrictions
and the infections appearing.

Sensible would be system of lifting restrictions in a closely confined
area, as a test. In Italy they have isolated a village for experimental
purposes.


I expect that the so-called Immunity Passport will be rolled out toot
sweet, so those of us that are economically productive and have shrugged
off a dose of Covid-19 already can get back to our usual routines. It
doesnt take a close study of the Tory mindset to know that theyre much
more keen about getting the economy going than keeping pensioners alive;
the next General Election is too far away for the loss of potential
voters to over-ride the cost of lockdown. And many of those that will
die from this wouldnt make it to the next election anyway, so its even
less of a concern for your common or garden Tory politico.

Of course, therell still be millions of Boomers on lockdown for months
to come while they wait for a vaccine. Theyll kick up an almighty fuss
about €œsnowflake millennials€� being allowed to do what they like again,
but the alternative is they roll the dice and catch the plague. A big
risk for that demographic.

All predicated on the - as yet untested - theory that it's not possible
to become reinfected, and that there are huge swathes of people that have
somehow developed immunity. All without a shred of evidence.


Yet the media haven't stopped screaming about the 'anti-body test' while
the Government are being sensible and evaluating the tests, checking
they are reliable etc.

I'd love to see one of the Government Scientists confront one of the
media types and call him a fool and point out just how stupid the media
are being.

If only Journalist who asked sensible questions were allowed into the
briefings, there wouldn't be any questions.

R4 this morning had an interview with someone who had come out of ICU.
Year older than Boris, clearly a far more serious case etc. He was asked
the most inane questions and they tried to draw conclusions re Boris.
Conversely, a chap local to use, even older, with several underlying
conditions, had been in ICU, his family had been told to expect the
worst, he was home a few days later, looking remarkably good in the
circumstances. People aren't the same. They recover differently.

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 07:36:17 +0000, Stephen Cole wrote:

Harry Bloomfield, Esq. wrote:
Dave Liquorice formulated the question :
All we can do is watch the hospital admissions and once they are
showing a consistent fall for a couple of weeks, lift some of the more
draconion ones and keep a close eye on the admissions. If they start
to exponentialy rise bang the restrictions back on. The tricky bit is
spotting early enough the difference between the rise that will occur
when the restrictions are lifted and a rise that means it's starting
to take off again.

The big problem with that, is the long lag between lifting restrictions
and the infections appearing.

Sensible would be system of lifting restrictions in a closely confined
area, as a test. In Italy they have isolated a village for experimental
purposes.


I expect that the so-called Immunity Passport will be rolled out toot
sweet, so those of us that are economically productive and have shrugged
off a dose of Covid-19 already can get back to our usual routines. It
doesnt take a close study of the Tory mindset to know that theyre much
more keen about getting the economy going than keeping pensioners alive;
the next General Election is too far away for the loss of potential
voters to over-ride the cost of lockdown. And many of those that will
die from this wouldnt make it to the next election anyway, so its even
less of a concern for your common or garden Tory politico.

Of course, therell still be millions of Boomers on lockdown for months
to come while they wait for a vaccine. Theyll kick up an almighty fuss
about €œsnowflake millennials€� being allowed to do what they like again,
but the alternative is they roll the dice and catch the plague. A big
risk for that demographic.

All predicated on the - as yet untested - theory that it's not possible
to become reinfected, and that there are huge swathes of people that have
somehow developed immunity. All without a shred of evidence.


Pound to a pinch of **** that the Tories will be more than happy to play
those odds. I mean, whats the worst that can happen, right? Dont forget,
it was only a month or so ago that official Government policy was to let
the plague run loose and €œif a few pensioners die, hard luck€�. Policy
didnt change; the optics did.

--
M0TEY // STC // #SaveOurNHS

On 10/04/2020 08:06, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Broadback explained :
What seems to have been lost is that the lockdown will not decrease
the number of cases. It is simply there to save the NHS from melt down
by spreading the cases over time. Personally I think the eye watering
cost to the economy would have been better spent pouring money into
the NHS.

I know they are doing a pretty good job creating the Nightingales, but
general they cannot simply and instantly magic up hospitals, equipment,
doctors and nurses. They have a lead time, particularly the latter
staff, measured in years. They virus is here - NOW, the need to take
measures is here and NOW. Lockdown is the only way to control it at this
moment.

As well as the extra staff "created" by early graduation for students
and re-enrolment for retired staff, the use of Nightingales makes a
difference by itself. It takes fewer staff to monitor large number of
patients on an "open" ward than it does on modern wards with a number of
separate rooms housing 6, 4 or even as few as 2 beds and "private" rooms.

SteveW

On 10/04/2020 00:11, Fredxx wrote:
They will only know that when they have tested sufficient of the
population for numbers of those infected. We have no idea what
proportion of the population are infected or the rate of new infections.

The real question is when will we know the NHS can cope?

Lets be optimistic, lets assume 2% of the population will need admission
to a hospital before herd immunity kicks in sufficiently. That's 1
million patients. Each one that survives, probably 1/2, will need a bed
for 1 or 2 weeks. That's a lot of beds, or a very long time to reach
herd immunity.

My numbers may be off, but that should paint a picture of how this might
pan out.

I went and looked at the South Korea figures earlier.

They've been carrying out extremely widespread contact tracing and
testing, and seem to have the epidemic under control. Unlike some
countries I have some faith in their numbers.

Let me merely say that if you are of a nervous disposition don't look
them up. My wife, for example, wouldn't benefit from knowing their figures.

We've been in lockdown now for three weeks, comfortably over the
incubation period; if lockdown is working we should be seeing a massive
drop in hospital admissions.

We aren't.

We may be wrecking the economy, and not helping the country's health.

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2020 00:11, Fredxx wrote:
They will only know that when they have tested sufficient of the
population for numbers of those infected. We have no idea what proportion
of the population are infected or the rate of new infections.

The real question is when will we know the NHS can cope?

Lets be optimistic, lets assume 2% of the population will need admission
to a hospital before herd immunity kicks in sufficiently. That's 1
million patients. Each one that survives, probably 1/2, will need a bed
for 1 or 2 weeks. That's a lot of beds, or a very long time to reach herd
immunity.

My numbers may be off, but that should paint a picture of how this might
pan out.

I went and looked at the South Korea figures earlier.

They've been carrying out extremely widespread contact tracing and
testing, and seem to have the epidemic under control. Unlike some
countries I have some faith in their numbers.

Let me merely say that if you are of a nervous disposition don't look them
up. My wife, for example, wouldn't benefit from knowing their figures.

We've been in lockdown now for three weeks, comfortably over the
incubation period; if lockdown is working we should be seeing a massive
drop in hospital admissions.

We aren't.

Because hordes are stupidly ignoring the lockdown
and even the lockdown isnt much of a lockdown at
all with everyone free to go shopping and to exercise.

We may be wrecking the economy, and not helping the country's health.

The hospital admissions would have been a lot worse with no lockdown.

Vir Campestris wrote:
On 10/04/2020 00:11, Fredxx wrote:
They will only know that when they have tested sufficient of the
population for numbers of those infected. We have no idea what
proportion of the population are infected or the rate of new infections.

The real question is when will we know the NHS can cope?

Lets be optimistic, lets assume 2% of the population will need admission
to a hospital before herd immunity kicks in sufficiently. That's 1
million patients. Each one that survives, probably 1/2, will need a bed
for 1 or 2 weeks. That's a lot of beds, or a very long time to reach
herd immunity.

My numbers may be off, but that should paint a picture of how this might
pan out.

I went and looked at the South Korea figures earlier.

They've been carrying out extremely widespread contact tracing and
testing, and seem to have the epidemic under control. Unlike some
countries I have some faith in their numbers.

Let me merely say that if you are of a nervous disposition don't look
them up. My wife, for example, wouldn't benefit from knowing their figures.


As weve seen, far too many people simply cant understand the numbers-
nothing to do with having a nervous disposition- they simply cant analyse
them and do basic research.

Of course, the media havent helped- their stupidity has sent people like
Pamela into some strange out of touch with reality orbit from which she
transmits but only receives what she wants, or perhaps that is the fumes
from hairdressing chemicals she mentioned earlier.

The numbers from Sweden are interesting, especially as they adopted a
different approach.

As were the comments today by one of gov medics re the difference between
different countrys approaches. Im not remotely suggesting he is wrong,
quite the converse his observations were most revealing.

On 10/04/2020 21:38, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 10/04/2020 00:11, Fredxx wrote:
They will only know that when they have tested sufficient of the
population for numbers of those infected. We have no idea what
proportion of the population are infected or the rate of new infections.

The real question is when will we know the NHS can cope?

Lets be optimistic, lets assume 2% of the population will need
admission to a hospital before herd immunity kicks in sufficiently.
That's 1 million patients. Each one that survives, probably 1/2, will
need a bed for 1 or 2 weeks. That's a lot of beds, or a very long time
to reach herd immunity.

My numbers may be off, but that should paint a picture of how this
might pan out.

I went and looked at the South Korea figures earlier.

They've been carrying out extremely widespread contact tracing and
testing, and seem to have the epidemic under control. Unlike some
countries I have some faith in their numbers.

Let me merely say that if you are of a nervous disposition don't look
them up. My wife, for example, wouldn't benefit from knowing their figures.

We've been in lockdown now for three weeks, comfortably over the
incubation period; if lockdown is working we should be seeing a massive
drop in hospital admissions.


in Suffolk there have hardly BEEN any admissions. 300 cases in total.
Its working HERE.

We aren't.

We may be wrecking the economy, and not helping the country's health.

London is another country. If they think they are invulnerable and the
tories are lying to em, let em all die.

Andy


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 07:01:12 +1000, John_j, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:



The hospital admissions would have been a lot worse with no lockdown.

What is really worse is that YOU useless senile pest haven't been infected
yet!

--
dennis@home to know-it-all Rot Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/04/2020 21:38, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 10/04/2020 00:11, Fredxx wrote:
They will only know that when they have tested sufficient of the
population for numbers of those infected. We have no idea what
proportion of the population are infected or the rate of new infections.

The real question is when will we know the NHS can cope?

Lets be optimistic, lets assume 2% of the population will need
admission to a hospital before herd immunity kicks in sufficiently.
That's 1 million patients. Each one that survives, probably 1/2, will
need a bed for 1 or 2 weeks. That's a lot of beds, or a very long time
to reach herd immunity.

My numbers may be off, but that should paint a picture of how this
might pan out.

I went and looked at the South Korea figures earlier.

They've been carrying out extremely widespread contact tracing and
testing, and seem to have the epidemic under control. Unlike some
countries I have some faith in their numbers.

Let me merely say that if you are of a nervous disposition don't look
them up. My wife, for example, wouldn't benefit from knowing their figures.

We've been in lockdown now for three weeks, comfortably over the
incubation period; if lockdown is working we should be seeing a massive
drop in hospital admissions.


in Suffolk there have hardly BEEN any admissions. 300 cases in total.
Its working HERE.


They gave the National number of admissions today, it was about 19k for 70k
confirmed cases, under 1/3. Obviously there are unconfirmed cases and some
who arent yet in hospital may yet need to attend but, overall, the
snapshot lines up with other countries- most people recover without even
going to hospital, let alone complex intervention. Those requiring
invasive ventilation represent a much smaller group- not only admitted to
hospital but also very ill. Not those like Boris who had a bit of O2 and,
Im pleased to say, seems to be recovering well.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
Quite clearly lockdown is continuing in Wales - Drakeford said so in
no uncertain terms. Though minimum diration has yet to be announced.

Just who was the idiot who thought a review on Easter Monday made
sense?

The virus is at different stages of its progression in the UK. Same as
in other countries. With London being some weeks ahead of others.

Chances are they'll ease restrictions on a regional basis. Anything
else would be silly.

why?

They will ease restrictions when they are certain the local NHS can cope.

how are you going to stop leakage across a boundary if rules are
different each side of it?

and is it really fair to say that residents of Manchester can go on
leisure trips to the Pennines but residents of Leeds can't

Why I said ease. Not abolish.

I was just watching last night's Newsnight (with hindsight it was the night
before's)

and they interviewed Andy Burnham and the mayor of Birmingham (a Tory)

and they both said that they thought changes to the rules on a regional
basis would be un-workable, un-enforceable and unfair

tim