There I guess

Life is about making hard choices - governments should choose the least bad choice when the country is at a crossroads - all I am doing is expressing my view that the adverse consequences from continuing the lockdown at this stage are more severe than any possible consequences from easing the lockdown. That is what the debate is really about.

I am of the view that the long term damage to the economy is worse than any of the alternatives.

I haven't seen anyone on here debating in those terms. We are talking about balance of risks and the risks to the economy now outweigh (in my view) the risks from the virus.

The sensible thing to do is to isolate care homes as far as possible, alert all those who are vulnerable (as far as we know) from the virus and then to allow the majority to get on with doing whatever they do to earn a crust of bread.

I think most of the economic damage is already bought in. The damage per day is probably much lower in magnitude than it was in the first week of the lockdown. In purely economic terms the worst case scenario is to come out of the lockdown and then have to go into a 2nd lockdown due to another wave.

The economy can 'survive' (survive here being a relative term, its still completely buggered) a short sharp hit. A bigger problem is damage accumulating over the long term (years rather than months).

The time to come out of lockdown is when we have robust evidence that R is not only well below 1 but sustainably below 1. We also need breathing room in case R starts to increase so we can stop it before it goes above 1.

It shows that intelligent and analytical people like you can't be sure if they've had it or not. I have long suspected that most who say they "had it in January or February" are wrong and in many cases guilty of wishful thinking.  Your result reinforces my belief. 

But how did it happen? Their schools are open

According to The Times the latest research shows children are just as likely to be infected as adults. On paper you would think schools would be Corona virus distribution centres. However, Denmark is clearly doing something right it would seem. 

In my case, I was sent home from work in late March due to a fever (and I had other symptoms, such as a sore throat. I also had night sweats following that, a few days later a cough, aches, pains and a general "out of it" feeling - like mild flu). It seems most likely it was mild flu after all.

The headteacher was convinced I'd had Covid, I was much less certain but wanted to get a test as soon as reasonably practicable.

I would suggest that those thinking they had it in December, January or even February are most unlikely to have had it - but we need those antibody tests rolled out pronto. If nothing else, it brings peace of mind knowing whether you'd had it or not!

Retron how did you manage to get the test done if you don't mind me asking?

I paid for it privately. Judging by their email apologising for a 4-hour delay in results, they've been getting a LOT of business!

A pathetically simplistic statement. Look at their deaths, R0, and the measures brought in. Incomparable with the UK.

The main measure they brought in which helped, was to bring in stringent border controls - alas, our government has been unwilling from the outset to follow suit.

But it is clear that community spread is now under control in the UK, so providing the right safeguards are there, I see no earthly reason why some in the education profession are so negative about reopening schools here in early June - it is not as though it is being sprung on them at two day's notice. If there are teachers in the at risk groups, then they should not be expected to go into school themselves, but surely there are sufficient younger, healthy teachers around for the modest return to school envisaged.

I see, it's good that you know now though although not the result you wanted. The Mrs had similar to you back in January so would like to know if she might have had it or not.

Question for  Dev etc. then, same sort of one asked of MM repeatedly because he's expressing his view. Lockdown is prioritising treatment of one illness amongst many that kill people. Why is the person with covid worth more than the cancer patient whose op is cancelled etc.? 

There was an article the other day about implications for global TB deaths because of how far back the covid efforts have set that field back. (1.6m I think was the number the lady was estimating) Why is okay to let those people die to save someone from covid? Is it because a lot of them will be in poorer countries so that's all okay then?

The linear arguments that are used on here to attack (not debate because there's precious little of that) alternative views are thoroughly depressing. Suggest the actions to contain covid are causing a lot of harm and maybe enough harm that the approach needs to be looked at again and you're callous and putting the economy before people's lives. Advocate an action that will as a consequence kill people (or allow them to die to be less emotive) and you're correct and a moral person <blink>

Out of curiosity in the event of a serious explosion affecting hundreds or thousands of people how do medics decide who to treat. Do they look at someone with a serious leg wound that they can definitely save the same as they do someone with multiple injuries that would take many medics to work on for a slim chance of saving them (and that they know will mean others die that they would have saved whilst working on this person) Or do they have to make a (cr*ppy) call and save the injured who would definitely survive with treatment?

When looking at operations do they say have it because we know you'll die without it or do they take in to account the harm that having the op may cause versus the benefits? You know, kind of like the harm an unspecific society wide lockdown will cause versus the harm it saves? How do you balance the mental health issues (and deaths) isolation will cause versus more people getting out and exercising due to the lockdown. How many are doing that versus those that are just sat around doing eff all and becoming a future heart attack or cancer victim as a result? How many lives are being saved due to a reduction in pollution versus deaths caused due to fear of visiting medical establishments,or a funnelling of resources and research away from a different medical field? Any clear answers on that or just opinions?

It's not heresy or an automatic sign of a callous, uncaring person to look at things from a different point of view. Doesn't necessarily make it right of course, any more than the opposing view does. 

Same thing I've said before I know and presumably won't mean anything now either. Must be nice to have that certainty and grasp of an extremely complicated and evolving situation to know so unequivocally what the best course of action is.

Blimey and you were really rough 

The EU doesn't have a bigger buying power than the NHS?

Yes, us liberals can't advocate the army shooting them 

​

 UK abandons total French exemption from 14-day quarantine for visitors

Quote

The British government has abandoned a proposed total exemption of France from a planned two-week quarantine for anyone visiting the UK, after critics asked why an entire country should be excluded from the scheme. Instead, only key professionals who need to travel between mainland Europe and Britain for purposes such as delivering freight will be excluded. The UK authorities will this weekend finesse their plans for the 14-day quarantine for almost anyone coming into the country in order to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

https://www.ft.com/content/ddf6b198-727b-43ec-a5e4-aef8b5d8fb06

​

Do you know how accurate the test results are? Is it possible that your results are a false negative?

Yes Caz, it was interesting reading accounts a while back where a number were fairly sure they might have had it. I think most winter's there is something nasty doing the rounds. This year in particular symptons have been heightened and highlighted where in the past they were just accepted as winter illness, in its many guises.

No danger of that with our politicians. Too busy saying how we are "beating" Europe most of the time and how well we have done.

Very well argued HD. Medics already discriminate between patients via a process known as "triage" - when too many present, they have to choose whom to treat first on the basis of multiple criteria. Those least likely to survive are left to last.

As far as I'm aware, with 100% sensitivity and 99.7% specificity, there will be no false negatives, just (very few) false positives. If it says you haven't had it, you really haven't!

EDIT: And regarding those who felt they had it, a reminder that there was a widespread outbreak of H3N2 flu in December and, as has been said below, followed by a type B flu outbreak.

I wonder if that's what I caught the tail end of? (I know my work colleague's partner came down with flu-like symptoms 10 days before I got it, as did my work collague's mum, but not the colleague herself - albeit she has a perennial cold! The partner had been working at the time next door to where Kent's first Covid-19 case had been reported and he was using the same small Tesco at lunchtime that they all used at the TV studio).

FWIW, the latest flu report is here. Note the H3N2 peak in winter and the massive spike in deaths over the past few weeks (Covid).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/885092/National_influenza_report_14_May_2020_week_20.pdf