Given the new testing plan, the only figure to be relied upon and to extrapolate from is the number of deaths. It also means we will have no real idea of the UK's mortality rate.

Originally Posted by: NickR 

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.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

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.

Originally Posted by: Arcus 

This is exactly the reason. 

If you implement the measures now people will over time become complacent and compliance will fall when it is needed the most. People shouting “they should do x, y and z immediately” are not considering the evidence-based scenario of compliance versus time. The approach being taken is based on scientific evidence and if people think we should discount that at any stage in this journey we are well and truly stuffed. There is no quick fix, “do this and it will be sorted quickly” scenario. It will be a bumpy ride but we surely must listen to the experts unless people think they know better than some of the world’s most experienced people in this field.

Originally Posted by: doctormog 

This is exactly the reason. 

If you implement the measures now people will over time become complacent and compliance will fall when it is needed the most. People shouting “they should do x, y and z immediately” are not considering the evidence-based scenario of compliance versus time. The approach being taken is based on scientific evidence and if people think we should discount that at any stage in this journey we are well and truly stuffed. There is no quick fix, “do this and it will be sorted quickly” scenario. It will be a bumpy ride but we surely must listen to the experts unless people think they know better than some of the world’s most experienced people in this field.

Originally Posted by: doctormog 

This is exactly the reason. 

If you implement the measures now people will over time become complacent and compliance will fall when it is needed the most. People shouting “they should do x, y and z immediately” are not considering the evidence-based scenario of compliance versus time. The approach being taken is based on scientific evidence and if people think we should discount that at any stage in this journey we are well and truly stuffed. There is no quick fix, “do this and it will be sorted quickly” scenario. It will be a bumpy ride but we surely must listen to the experts unless people think they know better than some of the world’s most experienced people in this field.

Originally Posted by: doctormog 

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.

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

Excellent post as ever Doc, but I think some of the concern is our markedly different approach to other developed nations. 

Originally Posted by: Joe Bloggs 

Excellent post as ever Doc, but I think some of the concern is our markedly different approach to other developed nations. 

Originally Posted by: Joe Bloggs 

Yes, I can understand that but the rationale given by both the CSO and CMO is evidence-based. Time will tell how effective it will be but that does not mean it is not the correct approach to take currently. “Shut everything and it will all go away” is simply a non-starter. Delay and flatten seems to be the best way to go. We will have to go through this very unpleasant situation and manage it the best we can. I have never been of the mindset that any publicly acceptable actions in this country could ever stop the spread of the virus.

I really understand the desire to implement closures and restrictions ASAP but when reading and listening to why that has not been done YET it make sure total sense. That stage could very well come and within the next few weeks.

Originally Posted by: doctormog 

I am coming round to this idea of flattening but will be a monumental task keeping the public onside when more and more countries jump onto the close everything bandwagon.

Originally Posted by: warrenb 

This is exactly the reason. 

If you implement the measures now people will over time become complacent and compliance will fall when it is needed the most. People shouting “they should do x, y and z immediately” are not considering the evidence-based scenario of compliance versus time. The approach being taken is based on scientific evidence and if people think we should discount that at any stage in this journey we are well and truly stuffed. There is no quick fix, “do this and it will be sorted quickly” scenario. It will be a bumpy ride but we surely must listen to the experts unless people think they know better than some of the world’s most experienced people in this field.

Originally Posted by: doctormog 

I don't understand the approach being taken.

Summer is coming and therefore transmission could (I realise this is not certain) slow markedly for several months. Therefore, a big push now for the next 8 weeks may be enough to give us a respite. By the next season it is possible existing drugs which provide some help will have been identified. It will also be a shorter period of time until a vaccine or newly designed drug/s becomes available. 

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

I do agree with this with a tiny 'but'. It could be framed as a war, but it would be a war you fight only for the virus to come back when you relent.

So, we have all to catch it in as controlled a way as possible? And, to go back to war, is there a possible (possible, tougher but better) better way to manage this? I guess the answer to that is what is the best rate for the population to catch this? Answer?

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

It seems as though China has managed to bring COVID-19. Are the UK's experts saying:

1) China has only bought a temporary respite and will soon see millions more cases

2) We can't do what China has done

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

I do agree with this with a tiny 'but'. It could be framed as a war, but it would be a war you fight only for the virus to come back when you relent.

So, we have all to catch it in as controlled a way as possible? And, to go back to war, is there a possible (possible, tougher but better) better way to manage this? I guess the answer to that is what is the best rate for the population to catch this? Answer?

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

It seems as though China has managed to bring COVID-19. Are the UK's experts saying:

1) China has only bought a temporary respite and will soon see millions more cases

2) We can't do what China has done

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

It seems as though China has managed to bring COVID-19. Are the UK's experts saying:

1) China has only bought a temporary respite and will soon see millions more cases

2) We can't do what China has done

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

It seems as though China has managed to bring COVID-19. Are the UK's experts saying:

1) China has only bought a temporary respite and will soon see millions more cases

2) We can't do what China has done

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

Do we really know how many have been infected in China (or any other country, for that matter)? We know how many have tested positive, but...

Originally Posted by: Arcus