LondonBristolian

3 minutes ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

During the election campaign and until a few weeks back I had learned to despise Sunak's toadying manner. He has grown on me a little recently. Seems to be stepping up more than Johnson.

Yeah - this actually seems to be some leadership at last...

18 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I think the data is still too raw, not detailed enough, you can find articles to suit nearly whatever death rates you chose.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says

No idea what the answer is, all we can do is follow the advice and guidance of the epidemiologists and health experts and hope they get it right.  But does there come a point where it gets taken out of health professionals hands?  Governments cannot allow their plans to be followed if they result in financial ruin for whole economies, as @Red-Robbo has said, this could lead to many deaths from other causes, including suicides.

As I understand it, that report which you quote has not yet been peer-reviewed (i.e had its methodology checked and examined by other experts) so it may be way too early to draw conclusions from it. However, if we did, we'd say that 41, 000 people have been infected in Italy from a 60 million population. That is around 0.06% of the population. There is talk of 60% of people in the UK ultimately being infected - i.e. 1000 times the number infected so far in Italy. If Italy reach a point where they have 60% of the population infected and it is true that only 1% have no underlying medical conditions, you are still talking 34, 000 deaths of healthy young people. So far we have way less than that and hospitals are already underwhelmed.

Even if that study is right, other studies show the rate of infection would still be significant enough for that 1% of healthy people to cause tens of thousands of extra deaths and hundreds of thousands of additional hospitalisations. Even the numbers you quote are way too overwhelming for @Red-Robbo's idea of letting the disease circulate amongst the healthy population to be a viable strategy without bringing the NHS to its knees.

PS I agree the data is still raw and we cannot be clear on exact reasons but I think that is all the more reason why we need to be prudent and plan for the worst outcomes the data suggests rather than hoping for the best and finding ourselves with a crisis on our hands. We and the rest of Europe have done that much already. 

24 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

The trouble is LB: how many medical crises are we storing up from mental stress and extreme anxiety, how many suicides because of financial ruin and loneliness, how much long-term damage is being done by reduced exercise , poorer nutrition and just general unhappiness?

To my mind, the idea I'm kicking about falls down if we think we cannot totally isolate both the most vulnerable - and those who work in healthcare and social care and their families.  It would probably only work with a lot more state intervention; a command economy as operated in wartime.

TBH I was thinking out loud rather than making a big case for herd immunity. But I am starting to think the way we are operating now is not only not halting the spread, but is simply unworkable for the whole of 2020.

@Maesknoll Red was ridiculed for saying that much of the economy operated during the last war despite extreme risks, but he was right. We need to weigh up the risks presented by this different sort of challenge.

BTW did you get the figure of 150,000 deaths among the "non-vulnerable" population from an official source? Chris Whitty was talking about 400,000 possible deaths overall earlier. It seems unlikely that more than a third of them would be from young people or those without pre-exisisting conditions.If you look at this data - assembled from WHO sources - the likelihood of death from infection falls dramatically with age. Children are 80 times less likely to die than the over-80s for example.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

 

I absolutely agree that the way we are operating is both failing to halt the spread and unworkable. And I agree we need to get the economy working again. I just don't think the idea you are suggesting is workable because of not only the implications but the number of people who are "healthy" and under 70 but still get hospitalised or die.

The figure of 150, 000 was a ballpark one and an example based on an assumption of 30 million people getting infected (somewhere around 40% of the population so below the 60% or 80% others have talked about) and an estimate at 0.5% mortality rate for people with no underlying conditions. The 30 million isn't perfect  as I don't have figures for what % of the populations stands to get infected with minimal social distancing (thus allowing the economy to function) but with over 70s and people with underlying conditions taken out. The 0.5% is an estimate because the stated mortality rate for people with no underlying conditions is 0.9% but this will include people over 70, who should be excluded.. But a substantial number of people over 70 will have an underlying condition so this will not shift the figure that much. Hence me going for 0.5%.

The 150, 000 is not meant to be perfectly accurate - as you can see, I lack some of the figures needed to calculate - but more an illustration that, when we talk about allowing a mass infection to circulate around the healthy population and the  rough  mortality rate for the healthy population 1 in 200 or possibly worse, we are still talking way more deaths than hospitals can manage. The other thing of course is the number of people who won't know they have an underlying health condition.

Figures in America suggest 40% of hospital admissions are amongst people from people aged 20 to 54. Figures are not available for how many of those had underlying conditions but it suggests the scale of the problem of just letting the virus circulate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html

21 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

It's along the line of what I have been saying, for the greater good, we will have to have some normality and accept that there will be some people infected because of this.  What good is saving a few lives if it causes huge suffering to the majority of the population?  That may sound harsh, but sometimes there has to be sacrifices made.  

I am of the same opinion, how can national economies possibly cope, there may be food in warehouses now, but if the world is locked down for an extended period, where will the new supplies come from?

The problem is twofold:

1)  I am sceptical of how you can control infections in a way that the NHS is not overwhelmed. One firth of 20-44 year olds with the disease are being hospitalised and - whilst people who are otherwise healthy only have a mortality rate of something like 0.5% - 30 million cases with a mortality of 0.5 would see 150, 000 extra deaths - way more than we can cope with. Statistically you are a lot safer if you are under 70 with no underlying health conditions but millions of under-70s around the world without health conditions would still end up dead or hospitalised. So I just don't think @Red-Robbo's plan can possibly work.

2) It is easy to talk up a sacrifice you yourself don't expect to make but there are a lot of people with health conditions with jobs, families and young children and full-time jobs.  Locking me and various other people up for our own good obviously isn't very desirable but I honestly don't think it is possible without making a load of people unemployed, taking children away from vulnerable parents and locking parents up if they have children with asthma or other conditions where they may be affected (6% of cases in children are serious).

3) Many of the most vulnerable people have care or support workers and many others will end up in hospitals for non-coronavirus related reasons. Unless the plan is to lock up a group of doctors, nurses and care and support workers then people are still gong to get infected.

There is no doubt that this virus is not going to go away and we need to find a way to co-exist with the virus rather than shut down the economy. But what you, @Red-Robboand @Ronnie Sinclairare talking about is practically unenforceable and would still end up with around 150, 000 extra deaths of young, non-vulnerable patients, millions of ICU beds taken up by young, non-vulnerable patients, the NHS overwhelmed and a massive crisis, only with the added steps of children separated from parents and elderly and disabled people incarcerated in their own homes only to subsequently catch it in hospital.

I think people really need to move past the idea this is only really a problem for people over 70 and with underlying health conditions because the facts don't bear that out. It affects those groups more, for sure, but still will severely affect a lot of people who are not in those categories - way, way, way too many for the NHS to cope with. 

57 minutes ago, pillred said:

The bit about lasting for decades, and to a lesser extent the civil disobedience, and what makes me so certain, past experience of this sort of thing remember aids, sars, bird flu, mad cow disease, I could go on, all were going to decimate the world what happened? exactly there seems to be no limit to mans ingenuity a cure for this will be found there are already positive news coming from various places as far as vaccines are concerned, stop swallowing all the doomsday scenario stuff it doesn't help and just fuels more panic his post was sensationalist at best and as I said complete BO***cks at worst. 

With all the infections you list, luck was on our side.

AIDS only spreads via body fluids so could be contained by safe sex and care taken in medical procedures. It has not gone away though.

SARS was lethal but was detected early and was not as infectious as some other diseases so it could be contained.

Bird Flu was contained with a hell a lot of work.

Mad Cow Disease luckily did not infect as many as initially feared and changes to food practices stamped out the possibility of catching it.

This is less deadly (for most people) than some of those diseases but spreads a lot easier. And the reality is that a whole load of countries - including us - were way too complacent about the risk and failed to put the steps in place that would have kept us safe. (I'm not necessarily blaming the government for that btw - Someone else - I think @Harry - made the point earlier those steps would have been unpalatable at the time. The reality is all of us were way too complacent in our belief it could not and would not happen here.  SARS, AIDs, Bird flu and BSE are irrelevant in terms of past experience as this is so far beyond the scale of risk from those epidemics.

The reality is that a significant proportion of the country are now, if they follow official advice, trapped in their homes without social contact in order to avoid this infection. The whole events and tourism industry is on its knees and many other industries are likely to follow. People will lose businesses they have worked on for years and lose jobs. People are going to have their investments wiped out by the stock market. As it stands, people are struggling to find enough food in the shops to eat.

A vaccine is 14 months away, if that works. There have been medical trials for treatments but so far no cure - just as no cure has been found for AIDS, bird flu, SARS or vCJD - literally all the examples you mention - or indeed the common cold. A year carrying on as things are now will completely shift the fabric of the country and indeed the world. Barring a miracle, the consequences of this will be far reaching and long lasting. Doubtless some will go back to "normal". Others will have lost jobs, businesses, homes or loved ones and the economy is going to take a long time to pick up. @Maesknoll Redis simply stating the obvious in my view and it is terrifying that so many people still don't seem to realise we're already way past a point where things can easily return back to normal without consequences and we're only two weeks into an epidemic that will certainly last for three months and will likely last well into 2021 - IF we find a vaccine then. I note @underhanded's point about being responsible in what we say but I think we need to be honest that this is not something that will pass in three months and all will be fine. 

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Starting to think that way Ska.

I think it is. And a friend made the point to me the other day that she had various friends on her Facebook page who had spent years sharing memes around poppies and talking up the blitz spirit and that those friends were the exact same people who were both panic buying and insisting on going out to pub, cafes and restaurants cos "the government isn't going to tell me what to do".

This is the chance these people keep saying they have been waiting for to do their patriotic duty for their country. And it turns out that,the time has come and their patriotic duty involves no more than

a) staying at home to protect the elderly and the vulnerable

b) refraining from buying from everything in the shop so that elderly people, vulnerable people and key workers have a chance of getting key provisions too

and even that is beyond them. Maybe the community spirit and stoic calm of the blitz is a mirage and a fairytale created after the event and people were just as panicked and self-interested now as they were then. Or maybe our society now just lacks the resolve to do what is needed. 

I am now back near Bristol and living with my Mum for the next twelve weeks as she and I have underlying health conditions and need to avoid social contact, and there was no way I could shut myself away successfully living in London. Hoping I won't be here too long as BristolBristolian is a rubbish username.

I am quite frustrated at being stuck home without seeing anyone for the next twelve weeks but, being blunt, I am in many ways relieved to have a health condition and - for now at least- to be able to shut myself off from the wold. It is becoming very clear in Italy and Spain that, for many people including some without health conditions, this is something far worse than a bit of flu. People are on ventilators, hospitals are stretched and people are dying.  Businesses are going under and people are struggling to get food and basic resources.

I know some people still don't want politics brought into it but that is the same kind of thinking that would have balked at any suggestion of removing Neville Chamberlain after the disastrous start to the Second World War. You can just imagine those posters pointing out Chamberlain was being advised by his experts and we needed to trust his decision making even as we saw country after country fall into disaster across Europe. The reality is there are lessons we can learn from Italy and Spain, where things are going badly, and from countries that have got this more under control. We are not doing enough. We need to be at a point where people are only leaving the house when it is essential and all non-essential contact is avoided and the government need to be making sure this is happening.

At the moment the government are worrying too much about being liked, lacking the resolve to make decisions with anywhere near the strength of France and Germany and people may and probably will die as a result. NHS staff need to be being tested, every single case needs to be being logged and tracked and there need to be firm laws preventing people spreading this virus. And nobody should have to be making the decision between going to work to make a living or keeping themselves and the rest of society safe. Politics is not a parlour game. It is the key question of how our country is governed and how decisions are made, especially during a crisis. When we leave politics out of this, we leave out everything that matters in terms of protecting people's financial wellbeing and, more importantly, their lives

1 hour ago, Roger Red Hat said:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/19/iss-report-99-of-covid19-deaths-already-ill/ 

There’s some massively disturbing, wrong and misleading assumptions there. One in six people have some form of impairment or health condition and that includes one in two people over 80. That does not mean they are about to drop dead, or explain the number of intensive care admissions and most of their “questions” are not valid questions at all.

There is literally no basis for the assertion the health condition rather than the COVID-19 is the cause of death nor any qualification or criteria given for why the author feels more qualified to comment than the many doctors working on the frontline in China, Italy, the UK and other countries who have been very clear about the scale of the crisis.

To be honest, what that article really reads like is “don’t panic because it is only disabled people dying so it doesn’t matter”, which is deeply disturbing, especially as the author has no reason at all for believing they would have died without the virus.

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Good point, but I would have thought Wuhan being under such lockdown and such a national effort- thousands of health workers sent there IIRC, would have brought the rate down.

Yeah - I understand why people would not trust the Chinese government but I understand the WHO have confirmed what the government are reporting and, given factories are opening and the specialist hospitals are closing, I struggle to see how they can be getting away with it if they are not telling the truth.

6 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

But surely the entire world (almost) is trying to develop a suitable vaccine? So presumably the time taken to hopefully reach a point where one is suitable for deployment will be reasonable? 

The problem is that you are meant to test vaccines and monitor for 14 months to ensure no side effects. Vaccines are being developed and tested but, unless health regulations change (which carries its own risk) it is still going to be May next year at the earliest that a vaccine has been sufficiently tested.

It is also possible the initial vaccines will not work quite as hoped and will need to be refined. And then there is the fact you need to manufacture and distribute enough for the world (if the countries around world can afford to pay for it). 

10 minutes ago, mozo said:

Here's another analogy... Lee Johnson decides he's going to play only 2 defenders in his line up, when all other clubs play 3, 4 or 5 defenders. Naturally, half the fans are saying 'hang on, that leaves us exposed at the back!' Now Lee might have uncovered a genius tactic that goes on to be successful, but it's rational to wonder if he's got his coaching all wrong.

What I don't understand is that this week the government and their advisers have - and this is entirely to their credit - accepted that they got it wrong, that mitigation was not going to work and we need to suppress the outbreak in the ways that other countries are doing. Hence we have very suddenly moved from "stay in for seven days if you have a cough" to "avoid pubs, restaurants and all non-essential social contact". 

Whilst we have not yet forcibly locked this down, we are now moving away from the tactics we were pursuing and moving towards the ones recommended by the WHO.

So why are people still saying the government have got this right when even the government admit that this is not the case and that they have needed to change direction?

2 minutes ago, North London Red said:

Entirely agree. A couple of things in recent days have made me think this is going to last for much longer than some people think.

Firstly, Chris Whitty was asked the other day how long these measures could be in place. His answer was 'weeks or months', and I got the sense he was being deliberately vague because he already knows the answer but doesn't dare reveal it to the public as the answer won't be a popular one.  

Secondly, if the government are offering assistance to businesses for the next 12 months, what does that tell you?

Thirdly, I come back to the point about 60% of the population becoming infected. If this is being considered as a likely outcome in the modelling, and if such a scenario were to occur within 12 months, it would mean an average of 100,000 new cases every single day. That's a rate of infection that's way, way beyond where we currently stand right now.

Regarding the third point, my understanding - which could be wrong - is now the aim is to try to prevent those 60% becoming infected. I think the 60% figure was if the mitigation model was used, which was the plan until last week when it was realised that it would mean intensive care beds getting overwhelmed and around 230, 000 deaths.

We're now aiming for less than 20, 000 deaths which, based on a 1% fatality rate, makes me think we are trying to keep it down to only 2 million infections - which is under 3% of the population. To achieve that is surely going to take prolonged social isolation and exclusion and, as a result, nothing approaching herd immunity, thus  increasing how vulnerable we are to the virus if it is not eradicated entirely. 

I hate to be gloomy but I'm starting to worry this is all a lot more serious still than many of us appreciate.

This is the report the government is basing its modelling on.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

It is not an easy read but there is a reasonable but gloomy summary here:

https://twitter.com/jeremycyoung/status/1239975682643357696

Essentially the conclusion is

a) this can only be stopped by suppression - i.e. isolation, social distancing, closures of work, businesses and schools etc.

b) It is likely that, when suppression stops, the virus will return.

Therefore we may need to continue the suppression tactics countries are using now for 12 - 18 months until there is a virus or a treatment.

There has been a review of it questioning whether the virus will return and suggesting it could be managed if so but I think the reality is we could be in for the long haul...

23 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I will admit it’s 30 years since I left the insurance industry, but this article backs up my point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51927691

Fair enough - sorry for grumpily dragging you and @PHILINFRANCE into an argument with another poster. I obviously only know what the bars and venues I know have told me they believe to be true. I obviously haven't read the actual insurance docs themselves so cannot be certain who is right. 

2 minutes ago, Markman said:

Item details

 

12 X Hand Gel Sanitiser Carex 50ml Aloe Vera 70% Ethanol Bacterial Alcohol Rub

 

 

Current bid:

£200.00

Postage:

£3.50 Economy Delivery

Item number:

324103252089

Local to where I live, there have also been reports of corner shops buying up supermarket toilet paper so they can charge double for it in their own shops. It is really depressing how much of the supposed panic buying is actually opportunism to create a shortage...

45 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

At least I don't run a restaurant. 

I can't help but think this "only test people if they've come back from abroad or know they've been in contact with people who have" is a cheapo way of trying to hide that they just do not have the resources to do so. South Korea at one time was the world's most infected country and what they did was test anyone who thought they had symptoms, if positive test those who were known to come into contact with them, and if those are positive test those in contact with THEM and so on. The rigorous testing regime and isolation of those with covid-19 has successfully slowed the progress of the virus right down there.  Over here, we have umpteen people who have no idea if they have the virus or not and we are relying on no one basically doing anything for the foreseeable for it just to vanish. Which seems very optimistic.

 

A bloke from the industry talking on R4 this morning said it was highly unlikely most hospitality industry outlets would have insurance that paid out even if they were legally ordered to shut, and even for those that did, the delay in payouts would mean they still wouldn't have the cash-flow to continue paying staff. He said yesterday's announcement effectively made 1 million redundant. Numerous pubs and restaurants are likely to never re-open and parts of our heritage and the UK we know could be lost forever.  

 

The more I think about the way this is being tackled - the economic impact, the social isolation and worry with likely increases in mental health problems/suicides, plus the lack of exercise for many and long-term health problems that will cause - the more I'm beginning to think that the expert's "cure" for this virus could be worse than the virus itself. Particularly if these measures last all year, as many suggest they will. 

No way will the economy "come roaring back" as Mr Blobby suggests, once a vaccine is developed. We're looking at deep, deep economic hardship and a very slow recovery.

I agree with much of this. My big worry - and this isn't a criticism of any particular government but the general approach - is that there doesn't seem to be much of a long-term plan beyond hoping we get a vaccine. I have an underlying health condition and am now going to be moving back to Bristol with my Mum for twelve weeks because of the difficulty in cutting down social contact in shared accommodation. It is going to have a massive psychological effect on me and various other people. I have a full time job, which luckily I can do from home, but it is still a massive ask to do a job that involves a lot of networking without doing any networking whilst living with your Mum.

But, after those twelve weeks? What then? My guess is it will be extended but, if it isn't, then the virus might come back. Maybe then it is possible to identify, track and shut down a second outbreak before it escalates but, if not, we're straight back to square one again. And there are few small businesses in the hospitality or entertainment industries that could survive a three month shutdown, let alone a year one if it comes to that.

We are doing a massive amount of damage to society at the moment and, whilst we may not have a choice, the world is going to look very different when we come out of the other side.

7 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I must say I am slightly disappointed at your all-encompassing post (most unlike you) as, in fact, this is a subject about which I know quite a lot: I deal with Business Interruption insurance claims, especially within the 'leisure' industry, on a professional basis and have done so for many years.

I tried as best I could to stress that my comments about the lack of BI cover related to the smaller, independendent pubs and restaurants, and I maintain my position.

No doubt your contacts within the industry will be able to update you once they have taken professional advice. 

I shall be very interested to learn how your contacts get on. 

 

I can only talk about grassroots live music, entertainment and arts venues, which including pubs that put events on and I can promise you they will be affected by this. They have taken the professional advice and they know they are affected and that they would have been covered by insurance if closure had been ordered, which is why I find it so odd that people who have not seen their insurance documents, nor spoken to their insurers are adamant the professional advice they have been given is wrong.

3 minutes ago, wood_red said:

So you are claiming that ALL bars/restaurants/theatres/music venues if force closed would not be out of pocket at all?

 No - that many but by no means all will recoup at least something on their insurance and that that “something” could be vital to the survival of those businesses.

2 minutes ago, wood_red said:

Am I an insurance expert - NO. 

Have I spoke to someone who runs a very large insurance company - YES

Have I spoke to 2 owners of pubs I frequent - YES

Are they fully covered if they are forced to close - NO

 

They are the FACTS that I know to be actual FACTS.

Your argument is that two pubs are not covered. That is no doubt true and various other pubs would not be either.  But nonetheless a lot of small businesses - be they theatres, music venues, pubs, clubs or other entertainment - would be. You can find that out by looking on Twitter, you can find that out by talking to industry bodies and you can find that out by talking to the venues concerned.

I am glad the two pubs you have spoken to are not adversely affected. But it is a fact a lot of small businesses will be.

3 minutes ago, wood_red said:

Oh dear.

So, despite the fact that venues have said this has prevented them from claiming on the insurance, and industry bodies have said this has prevented them from claiming on the insurance, you have decided they are all wrong because you find it a tad inconvenient?

The bottom line is you are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts. And, on this one, you have your facts completely wrong.

7 minutes ago, Bouncearoundtheground said:

Statement from local music venue and pub Louisiana. 
 

Are you calling them liars? 

Yes - but you are ignoring the fact @PHILINFRANCE, @Maesknoll Red and @wood_red all have the uncanny ability to glance at a business and automatically know their insurance policies better than the owners.

There is literally no possibility any of them have decided to blunder in on a subject they know little about and made a load of assertions that anyone familiar with those industries would know to be fundamentally wrong.

13 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I doubt many small businesses have insurance that covers such a scenario, so not sure how that is protecting insurance companies, it’s big one off events like Glastonbury that are likely to be insured, rather than a local pub or restaurant.

4 minutes ago, wood_red said:

Don't say that - it doesn't suit the political agendas of many on here.

Let's not let facts get in the way ffs.....

You certainly aren’t letting the facts get in the way. You have made the weird and arrogant decision that you understand businesses’ insurance policies better than those businesses themselves. 

A lot of small theatres and music venues are small independent businesses - in many cases essentially doubling up as  a town’s local pub. From what people do involved with them tell me, their insurance would be affected. Not just large events like Glastonbury.

These people know their businesses. You very evidently do not know their businesses. I am really not clear why posters who have never seen their insurance policies feel they know best here but I can promise you don’t.

Hardly a fringe point either.

If you don’t know pubs, bars and venues’ insurance policies, maybe admit that rather than pretending you do for political convenience? 
 

So let’s not let the facts get in the way indeed.

3 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Who is ‘we’ ?

 

Literally anyone who has read up on how lobbying works in the UK. Or who has access to Google. Or a newspaper.

3 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

...and you know the insurance companies are his mates? How did you know that?

We know they have a considerable lobbying influence.

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

If he instructed people to not attend then the companies in question could claim on insurance.  As he has only advised then they can’t. Thus protecting insurance companies 

Exactly. There would need to be an order for closure, which has not happened.