theweatheroutlook

Remove ads from site

David M Porter
12 March 2020 17:34:00

If this had happened a few months ago, do you think we might have revoked / drastically extended A50?

I wonder if we'll extend the transition period?

Originally Posted by: John p 


We might well have to, depending on what happens during the rest of this year with this virus and everything else that was already being considered.


One thought that occured to my mind is that, while the current situation is more than serious enough, we should perhaps be grateful that this did not arise about 6 months ago when we were in the descent towards winter. If this virus had got the foothold that it now has in this country in November, for example, one can only imagine the horrendous pressure the NHS would have been under during winter itself.

Lenzie, Glasgow

"Let us not take ourselves too seriously. None of us has a monopoly on wisdom, and we must always be ready to listen and respect other points of view."- Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022
Arcus
12 March 2020 17:35:35
Pretty much re-confirming what has already been said by many of us. Testing numbers should not be used as any kind of reliable guide, and the 80% infection rate of the UK population remains a possibility, albeit a worse-case one.
Ben,
Nr. Easingwold, North Yorkshire
30m asl
speckledjim
12 March 2020 17:36:28


This is what the CMO has said.


"If you calculate what that really means in terms of the total number, it is much more likely that we have between 5,000 and 10,000 people infected at the moment.


"That is still a relatively small number."


Smaller number he said, but no real action to stop that number growing. I am starting to struggle to understand why our approach is so different - I suspect the public at large are starting to not understand either. Its not being explained very well


Originally Posted by: Heavy Weather 2013 


As far as I can see the approach is for steady growth and to try and smooth the peaks. So far that is what we have experienced but of course things could change for the worst in an instant. What the government is obviously fearful of is to introduce more draconian measures that the general public initially accept but after a period of time they rebel against. 

Thorner, West Yorkshire


Journalism is organised gossip
Gavin D
12 March 2020 17:37:04
Peak possibly 10 to 14 weeks away but could be longer
Arcus
12 March 2020 17:37:43


In the last couple of hours I have returned from Rovaniemi, Finland. We flew out to Helsinki last Thursday and the to Rovaniemi on Friday. Today we took the same route (so 2 flights) to get back to Heathrow. The trip was my 50th birthday pressie from Mrs G. On Wednesday 4th March we considered whether to cancel it but in the end decided to go ahead. Some of you may recall me saying I've not had a cold for 4 or 5 years. As it happens I developed a nasty one whilst we were in Finland. It didn't stop me from going on Husky Safari and snowmobiles as well as walking a lot. However, I intend to call 111 tomorrow (I won't be socialising or coming into contact with anyone apart from Mrs G before then). 


Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 


Don't bother with 111. If you have a raised temperature (37.8+) and continuous cough then go to self-isolate is the advice.

Ben,
Nr. Easingwold, North Yorkshire
30m asl
warrenb
12 March 2020 17:42:23
Also telling was the fact that it was implied that they want a majority of people to get this, over an extended time to build resistance to future outbreaks. Was said "it is actually advantageous for most people to catch it". Remember Spanish Flu came in two waves with the worst being the second wave in the Autumn of 1918.
Tonbridge 45m 
Joe Bloggs
12 March 2020 17:43:35

I am struggling to understand why, given the reports coming out of Italy, the government didn’t impose far stricter measures several days ago. The economy is stuffed whatever happens. Let’s not allow the NHS to collapse too.

Originally Posted by: Rob K 


The general theme is they are worried people wouldn’t last two minutes with draconian measures , and would rather only implement them when they really have to, further down the line. 


I can understand the logic but it could cost us dearly. 


Manchester City Centre, 31m ASL
Joe Bloggs
12 March 2020 17:44:37

Interesting that they only plan to test people who are in hospital.

Isn’t that very different to other nations?

Originally Posted by: Joe Bloggs 


I feel this is quite a big deal. Any thoughts? Is this comparable with other countries? 


Manchester City Centre, 31m ASL
Heavy Weather 2013
12 March 2020 17:45:55

Cancelling large sporting events 'not a major way to tackle this epidemic'


Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said: "On average, one person infects two or three others.


"You therefore have a very low probability of infecting a large number of people in a stadium and a rather higher probability of infecting people very close to you.


"And that means that most of the transmission actually tends to take place with friends and colleagues and those in close environments - and not in the big environments.


"Though it is true that any cancellation of things can have some effect, if you then get a displacement activity where you end up with everyone congregating somewhere else, you may actually perversely have an increased risk, particularly in an indoor environment.


"So it doesn't mean you shouldn't at some point make the decision from a resilience point but this is not a major way to tackle this epidemic."


___


Surely if you have a stadium full of 60,000. Off said 60,000 you may have 60 that are spreadsers. If those 60 infect 2-3 people you increasing the infection rate surely. You mutilply that across all saturday and sunday fixtures this weekend and infection rates could go through the roof.

Mark
Beckton, E London
Less than 500m from the end of London City Airport runway.
Ally Pally Snowman
12 March 2020 17:52:40


Cancelling large sporting events 'not a major way to tackle this epidemic'


Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said: "On average, one person infects two or three others.


"You therefore have a very low probability of infecting a large number of people in a stadium and a rather higher probability of infecting people very close to you.


"And that means that most of the transmission actually tends to take place with friends and colleagues and those in close environments - and not in the big environments.


"Though it is true that any cancellation of things can have some effect, if you then get a displacement activity where you end up with everyone congregating somewhere else, you may actually perversely have an increased risk, particularly in an indoor environment.


"So it doesn't mean you shouldn't at some point make the decision from a resilience point but this is not a major way to tackle this epidemic."


___


Surely if you have a stadium full of 60,000. Off said 60,000 you may have 60 that are spreadsers. If those 60 infect 2-3 people you increasing the infection rate surely. You mutilply that across all saturday and sunday fixtures this weekend and infection rates could go through the roof.


Originally Posted by: Heavy Weather 2013 


 


I just hope they know what they are doing but  their strategy seems odd to me. We know social distancing works so just get on with it . I'm amazed they didn't say work from home if you can at the very least.


 


 

Bishop's Stortford 85m ASL.
speckledjim
12 March 2020 17:55:25


 


 


I just hope they know what they are doing but  their strategy seems odd to me. We know social distancing works so just get on with it . I'm amazed they didn't say work from home if you can at the very least.


 


 


Originally Posted by: Ally Pally Snowman 


It will be interesting to see if there is any spike in cases in Liverpool after last night’s match. If it’s a no then the strategy may well be correct, if yes then there will a huge fallout 

Thorner, West Yorkshire


Journalism is organised gossip
Retron
12 March 2020 17:55:52


I just hope they know what they are doing but  their strategy seems odd to me. We know social distancing works so just get on with it . I'm amazed they didn't say work from home if you can at the very least.


Originally Posted by: Ally Pally Snowman 


Having watched that press conference, the overwhelming theme was "it's too early to do any of this stuff, so we're waiting until it gets much worse before doing it. We also want to build herd immunity, so we need a lot of people to get it."


For better or worse, they're following the "let it rip" path.


(Incidentally I note the Tele's headline is now: "Coronavirus latest Boris Johnson warns 'many families will lose loved ones'". I suspect he'll be a bit annoyed about that part of his speech being picked out!)

Leysdown, north Kent
Saint Snow
12 March 2020 17:56:14


 I'm amazed they didn't say work from home if you can at the very least.


Originally Posted by: Ally Pally Snowman 


 


This is beginning to really annoy me now


My employer, like most, is waiting for the government to advise this


Martin
Home: St Helens (26m asl) Work: Manchester (75m asl)
A TWO addict since 14/12/01
"How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics."
Aneurin Bevan
warrenb
12 March 2020 17:56:43
They have either got this very very right, or very very wrong, I don't think there is an in between here, HMG are playing a very high risk game.
If they can keep infections to a steady rate over a prolonged time, not only does it protect the population in the future, but also allows resources not to be overstretched.
If they have it wrong then infection rates will sour over the next week or so, and the whole lot collapses.
Tonbridge 45m 
Gandalf The White
12 March 2020 17:57:29


Cancelling large sporting events 'not a major way to tackle this epidemic'


Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said: "On average, one person infects two or three others.


"You therefore have a very low probability of infecting a large number of people in a stadium and a rather higher probability of infecting people very close to you.


"And that means that most of the transmission actually tends to take place with friends and colleagues and those in close environments - and not in the big environments.


"Though it is true that any cancellation of things can have some effect, if you then get a displacement activity where you end up with everyone congregating somewhere else, you may actually perversely have an increased risk, particularly in an indoor environment.


"So it doesn't mean you shouldn't at some point make the decision from a resilience point but this is not a major way to tackle this epidemic."


___


Surely if you have a stadium full of 60,000. Off said 60,000 you may have 60 that are spreadsers. If those 60 infect 2-3 people you increasing the infection rate surely. You mutilply that across all saturday and sunday fixtures this weekend and infection rates could go through the roof.


Originally Posted by: Heavy Weather 2013 


Currently, based on the figures given in the press conference, there are possibly 1 or 2 people infected per 10,000.  So, in a crowd of 60,000 there might be 5-10 people, so 10-30 possible additional infections.   But the average crowd at a sporting event is surely much fewer than 60,000?


The point was also made that if you cancel the sporting events people won't stay at home, they may well go and do something else involving other people, so the result is the same.


 


I noted the number of times that they all stressed the need to get the timing right of any measures and the recognition that you can't expect people to put their lives on hold for weeks on end.  If this is not going to peak for around three months and people becomes lax about following recommended precautions after a while surely you have to aim to get the best possible impact from anything that's implemented?  Schools are a good example - if they're closed now can you really keep them closed until June?

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Arcus
12 March 2020 17:58:54


Cancelling large sporting events 'not a major way to tackle this epidemic'


Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said: "On average, one person infects two or three others.


"You therefore have a very low probability of infecting a large number of people in a stadium and a rather higher probability of infecting people very close to you.


"And that means that most of the transmission actually tends to take place with friends and colleagues and those in close environments - and not in the big environments.


"Though it is true that any cancellation of things can have some effect, if you then get a displacement activity where you end up with everyone congregating somewhere else, you may actually perversely have an increased risk, particularly in an indoor environment.


"So it doesn't mean you shouldn't at some point make the decision from a resilience point but this is not a major way to tackle this epidemic."


___


Surely if you have a stadium full of 60,000. Off said 60,000 you may have 60 that are spreadsers. If those 60 infect 2-3 people you increasing the infection rate surely. You mutilply that across all saturday and sunday fixtures this weekend and infection rates could go through the roof.


Originally Posted by: Heavy Weather 2013 


I think the reasoning is that compared to existing transmission that will already be occurring, it's not significant. Far higher transmission rates will be likely be occurring in shops, pubs, cafes, restaurants, cinemas, galleries etc. etc. You could shut down all those things now as well, but no-one is going to put up with that for a sustained period of time.

Ben,
Nr. Easingwold, North Yorkshire
30m asl
Devonian
12 March 2020 17:59:22

I am struggling to understand why, given the reports coming out of Italy, the government didn’t impose far stricter measures several days ago. The economy is stuffed whatever happens. Let’s not allow the NHS to collapse too.

Originally Posted by: Rob K 


Yes, I wondered that as well.


I'm not sure why we don't try to hammer it bar it would mean shutting everything for several weeks - but if we're on the same trajectory as Italy we'll have to do that at some point anyway.


The economy isn't stuffed though. Even after wars, or in war, people survived - but such thinking is not what we need and perhaps why we're doing (or not doing) what we're not doing. There is a element of 'keep calm and carry on' needed I suspect.


I think this virus looks like it kills 1% of those who obviously get it, which will be thousands but not ten or hundreds of said - no where is it, or has it, caused mass deaths. I hope.


CV19 is make or break for leaders tho. I think it'll finish trump.

Heavy Weather 2013
12 March 2020 17:59:26

They have either got this very very right, or very very wrong, I don't think there is an in between here, HMG are playing a very high risk game.
If they can keep infections to a steady rate over a prolonged time, not only does it protect the population in the future, but also allows resources not to be overstretched.
If they have it wrong then infection rates will sour over the next week or so, and the whole lot collapses.

Originally Posted by: warrenb 


The problem is they are still not testing enough, so confirmed cases look steady. We have this stupid situation when the CMO says there is probably around 10,000 cases. If there is probably about 10k, why are they not taking the stronger action.

Mark
Beckton, E London
Less than 500m from the end of London City Airport runway.
Gandalf The White
12 March 2020 18:03:09


 


Having watched that press conference, the overwhelming theme was "it's too early to do any of this stuff, so we're waiting until it gets much worse before doing it. We also want to build herd immunity, so we need a lot of people to get it."


For better or worse, they're following the "let it rip" path.


(Incidentally I note the Tele's headline is now: "Coronavirus latest Boris Johnson warns 'many families will lose loved ones'". I suspect he'll be a bit annoyed about that part of his speech being picked out!)


Originally Posted by: Retron 


The clear message seemed to be that you can't stop a pandemic of a novel virus for which there is no immunity and no vaccine.  All you can do is manage the outbreak.  Plus, as you say, getting the timing of measures right.  That of course is where everyone has an opinion about whether they're judging it right.  Their logic, based on a lot of research, seems quite sound.


It will be an interesting test to see if there's a spike of cases on Merseyside next week following the Atletico match last night; hopefully  there won't be.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Gandalf The White
12 March 2020 18:04:55


 


I think the reasoning is that compared to existing transmission that will already be occurring, it's not significant. Far higher transmission rates will be likely be occurring in shops, pubs, cafes, restaurants, cinemas, galleries etc. etc. You could shut down all those things now as well, but no-one is going to put up with that for a sustained period of time.


Originally Posted by: Arcus 


Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Devonian
12 March 2020 18:04:56


 


I think the reasoning is that compared to existing transmission that will already be occurring, it's not significant. Far higher transmission rates will be likely be occurring in shops, pubs, cafes, restaurants, cinemas, galleries etc. etc. You could shut down all those things now as well, but no-one is going to put up with that for a sustained period of time.


Originally Posted by: Arcus 


I hope people would be prepared to go on a 'war' footing - but we/they need to be primed I guess.


However, if we did shut down, calm it, and then start moving about again after a few weeks - presumably it flares up again...besides, if houses are not heated people die, if food isn't moved people get angry. That balance thing again.


It could be bad for those who show bravado and complacency and good for those who hide - rather the opposite to war perhaps.

Gandalf The White
12 March 2020 18:06:07


 


It will be interesting to see if there is any spike in cases in Liverpool after last night’s match. If it’s a no then the strategy may well be correct, if yes then there will a huge fallout 


Originally Posted by: speckledjim 


Missed this - agreed.  Fingers crossed.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Saint Snow
12 March 2020 18:09:34

But the average crowd at a sporting event is surely much fewer than 60,000?


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


 


It is at the Emptihad, regardless of what the Abu Dhabi dictators claim.


 



 


Martin
Home: St Helens (26m asl) Work: Manchester (75m asl)
A TWO addict since 14/12/01
"How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics."
Aneurin Bevan
Ally Pally Snowman
12 March 2020 18:13:07

They have either got this very very right, or very very wrong, I don't think there is an in between here, HMG are playing a very high risk game.
If they can keep infections to a steady rate over a prolonged time, not only does it protect the population in the future, but also allows resources not to be overstretched.
If they have it wrong then infection rates will sour over the next week or so, and the whole lot collapses.

Originally Posted by: warrenb 


 


The proof of their strategy will be in the pudding which is grimly how many people end up in ICU or dead. At the moment we are doing ok compared to most of our comparable European friends. Agree though is a very risky and quite frankly scary strategy. 

Bishop's Stortford 85m ASL.
Ally Pally Snowman
12 March 2020 18:14:36

I wonder if Chris Whitty is a Liverpool fan?


 

Bishop's Stortford 85m ASL.
Users browsing this topic
    Ads