Yep now confirmed - WFH for the foreseeable.

I've been wondering the same sort of thing for a long time way before this current crisis appeared on the horizon. From a place I know quite well it wouldn't surprise me if China soon decides to strengthen its hand in the South China Sea which they pretty well control anyway but this time with a take over of Palawan Island with its deep water port and international airport. All domestic flights from Manila to Palawan are to be cancelled in the next day or two which means the food and essentials a considerable proportion of which come in by air are going to be in short supply soon. The US and Europe are bogged down in a crisis and probably wouldn't want to go half way around the world to rescue a small island which no one's heard of.

https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/13/20/canceled-flights-puerto-princesa-covid-19-coronavirus-no-classes

Plenty of opportunities for China to fill the gap in SE Asia plus Africa in particular which seems to have become part of the new Celestial Empire without anyone noticing.

And as Roger mentions, is the govt preparing us for a more let's say draconian control that once we're in is hard to get out of? Based on the people are demanding it of course.

'Lets close borders several weeks to an entire month after the effective window is already gone'

Does anyone know what the regional changes were for UK update. Keeping an eye on London

Yes, pointless now. The only things that would make any difference are restrictions on social contact and large gatherings of people. But HMG won't go there because of this goal of getting enough of the population infected to achieve 'herd immunity'.

I suspect that as the deaths start to mount, public opinion will force a govt U-turn.

London now up to 136 cases, seems to be a brewing hotspot. Sorry, not updated from yesterday, but the page is here.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/f94c3c90da5b4e9f9a0b19484dd4bb14

I suspect HMG calculates that these measures are not sustainable for a long period and are less effective than people think.

The worst of all worlds, they would calculate, is going in too early; seeing a brief remission in cases, coming out and then being hit by the mother of all 2nd waves.

They may be right, I don't know. But frankly I think travel restrictions back in January were far more sustainable than anything we can do to stop community spread. It's quite possibly far too late to stop this from being a disaster.

Edinburgh Airport has warned that it is potentially facing the scenario of receiving no passengers in the next three months because of coronavirus.

Birmingham airport will be the same - a chunk of Birmingham traffic is to India and Pakistan, but India has already closed down and Pakistan will doubtless do the same.

P.S. latest from Pakistan:

"International flights will operate only out of Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad airports."

And Hong Kong:

Hong Kong will make all travellers from Europe stay in quarantine for 14 days, its government says.

The new measures will come in on 17 March.

India:

India will close its land borders with Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar due to COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak, Asian News International are reporting.

I think thats yesterdays figures still

As I said in an edit, but when it updates it will be on that page.

I think you will be correct in this. I think the effect in the UK is going to verging on the catastrophic - socially and economically.

Cue the howls...

And I know people will think this is a political point, but I'm not trying to make one.

But the EU could really have made a difference here.

So let's say we went with my early agressive strategy to stop anything coming into the UK by banning 100% of affected areas. We would now be stuck in a situation where we are effectively isolated from the entire world (aprt from, ironically China). Obviously it is not sustainable to ban travel from the US and the entirety of Europe even though it may well be sustainable to ban indivudal countries.

But if the whole of the EU had done this then perhaps it could have been avoided. Europe might be clean and we would be looking at a ban now from the US which would be far more sustainable.

And regardless of whether or not the EU has actual powers to do something like this, what is the point of a centralized European authority if they cannot stop the mother of all continent wide problems?

I keep coming back to this - when the scale of the outbreak in Italy first hit the news, Slovenia, Austria, Switzerland and France should have all closed their land borders and all residents in other European countries should have been instructed to cancel their skiing holidays in the Italian Alps.

But at the time, the EU was more concerned to maintain open borders and Schengen. Just why the UK (now outside the EU) did not act immediately, I really don't know - should have been an instant advisory not to travel to Italy and a stopping of all flights from Milan airports.

P.S. This is the right approach:

"Vietnam has announced that from noon Vietnam time (0500 UK) on 15 March 2020 all foreign nationals will be refused entry to Vietnam if in the previous 14 days they have been to the UK, or any Schengen country, even in transit. This restriction will be in place for 30 days."

Once the scale of this in the UK becomes clear and once we can see the numbers of people falling ill rising in the thousands per day, then no matter what laissez faire attitude HMG takes, people are going to act for themselves. And that means the economy will go into freefall (if it isn't already)

A study suggested you need to get 99.9% perfect ban to stop it in terms of travel.

I guess people calculated that was impossible. Was it though? Complete closure to Iran was certainly possible and we could have shut down Italy to all but the most necessary travel and then screened at all entry points.

Maybe this has already been factored in to the government response? Maybe the government wants people to act for themselves. It may well be more sustainable to have:

Individual action now + government action in x weeks time

Vs

Government action now

Perhaps, but a percentage of the population will not act for themselves but will think that they are not at risk and will carry on blithely. 

Correct. Very easy to claim stable doors and horses bolting on the border controls, but to be honest the horse bolted as soon as this virus came into being. Accepting that makes things much simpler.

Yes, work haven't yet given green light on WFH - think they are still waiting for a firmer line from HMG. But I have taken decision out of their hands and insisted I want to now WFH for foreseeable future. Others are doing the same.

___

On another note, I have just spoken to a friend who works in the London Ambulance service. He says callout's have increased massively. He also said that they also get alot of people panicking thinking they have it. He said, ts already horrendous out there

Yes that's true.

However those that do act now, might be less likely to become complacent if the govt response is delayed. It might function as a kick up the arse to keep people doing what they are already doing?

Even a 90% travel ban would have a 2 week delay though which still could have been useful.

If the premise is correct then what is the point of a travel ban now? Would have been more useful to do it in January

Well, I am no epidemiologist, but if the aim is to flatten the peak, surely restricting foreign travel would reduce the speed of spread of the contagion?

If two infected people come from Italy, they may infect X others before being tested positive.

if ten come in, they may infect 5X others - surely that is the logic of it.

The name of the game is guarding against a huge spike in numbers that overwhelms your health system, hence the delay phase and associated measures. You're not trying to stop the spread - that's just pi$$ing in the wind - but you are trying to manage it as much as possible.

Not if it's already endemic. You don't stop exponential growth with a linear response.
The point I am skeptical about is the effectiveness earlier on when we didn't have sustained local transmission.