LondonBristolian

4 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

 

 

All very interesting comments, but I would doubt that many 'independent' pubs and/or restaurants, if any, hold the appropriate Business Interrupton insurance cover that might apply in these current circumstances. 

Without going in to the semantics, for BI cover to apply, an insured event that affects the insured business itself must have occurred, e.g. a fire, storm etc.

To give a local example, should there have been a serious fire in an adjacent street, think Guildhall, with access to your establishment being denied for perhaps weeks, it is unlikely your BI cover would apply.    

  

All I can say is that I have connections with people who work within some of those businesses and they believe they have the cover if the order is made to close. It goes without saying that I have not responded their policies and am going off what they tell me their insurance says.

16 minutes ago, wood_red said:

Yeah, course he is FFS. First thought must be to say to all the advisers "whoa, whoa, hang on a minute, I got a few mates who work here and there and we can't shut them down". Committing political suicide just to protect a few mates!!

Get a grip of yourself and stop posting utter nonsense., and get yourself over to the Politics Forum if you want to make everything on here political.

 

It is political. Boris Johnson has chosen to protect the insurance industry over small businesses. That is literally a political decision. Telling someone not to make politics political is the daftest thing I have seen on this thread.

And you would need to be utterly naive not to realise the decision is connected to the fact the insurance industry has more lobbying influence than small businesses 

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed. Has to be with some, if not all of them. We all have to make sacrifices in such times.

I believe it won't be unanimously seen as such though. Can imagine some on this thread raising objections for a start.

I would certainly hope not. Now is not the time to politicise things but to ensure each and every person has the basic support they need. France has gone much further but the list above is literally the least we can do.

1 hour ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Which fraud?  If you mean Johnson (Boris not Lee) then I have no doubt you could add all politicians of all parties to that, who has ever had to deal with something like his in peace time?  All any politician can do is act on the scientists advice, if they went off on their own thoughts, then if it all went to shit, they’d have no get out at all.......

I broadly agree but I do think it cynical and a bit cowardly to ask people not to go to pubs but refuse to close them outright. The government has a responsibility to play fair by everyone at a moment like this and that has to include ensuring small businesses are not out of pocket with no recourse to compensation or support.

What he has effectively done is deny pubs business without allowing them to claim on their insurance, thus protecting insurance companies and destroying small businesses. That is not scientific advice but very nasty politics.

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw this online. Any thoughts?

All basically common sense at the moment.

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Trying to shut down legit questions by accusing people of politicising it. A bit of Government transparency wouldn't go amiss...something that @bcfc01 and @Robin-hugh-blind seem less than keen on too based on their posts last night.

BTRFTG does defend them quite a bit, but taking the Government out of it I wonder what the strategy really is...

I think the other thing that strikes me is people talk about the fact we are following the science but I think, in many cases, they don’t quite understand what that science is and how it differs to the science other countries are following.

I am both a layperson and trying to be simplistic but the key point that I am not sure is well understood is that we are following theoretical science based on models and predictions rather than evidential science based on experimentation and learning. Essentially the WHO are saying “this is what we know works based on what other countries have tried” whereas we are saying “this is what should be work, based on the assumptions and calculations we have made”.

Our approach is based on behavioural economics and theoretical modelling. Both of those fascinate me and I actually believe there are many situations where both can produce better results than following tried and tested practice but

a) they are both relatively new approaches and the evidence base for them is not by any means established, especially in the area of epidemics

b) both are only as good as the assumptions that people feed into the system and these can contain human error.

That is not necessarily a worse approach - there are situations where you might want to take a gamble based on a calculation in the hope it will provide better results than what is tried and tested - but it is a gamble and, in this case, the stakes are higher than in any decision the government has taken since World War Two. Get this wrong and we have an out of control epidemic, overcrowded hospitals and a lot of people will die who might otherwise have even saved.

Anyone who says we are following the science is absolutely right but any one who says we should therefore trust the science needs to factor in that nobody yet knows if the science can be trusted and we are virtually  the only country not following a WHO model with far more of an evidence base. Only time will tell if we will be seen as the country that stayed calm and acted smartly during a crisis or the country that went on a wild goose chase based on flawed science and thus failed to save lives.

25 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

They were probably confident 100 years earlier, but look how that turned out.....

Fair point!

9 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

See also Corbyn announcing he's so upset with Johnson's actions he'll be writing to him to ask what emergency measures his Health Secretary will be announcing Tuesday ? (As if the PM wasn't busy enough at the moment.)

As commentators pointed out, rather than shooting his mouth off on TV and social media Corbyn might simply have asked his Shadow Health Secretary who in a welcome cross-party, emergency effort helped Government draft the emergency measures to be announced.

Or John McDonald this morning proselytising the Government : " ...must listen to the people," this from a senior party member who concluded that Labour's utterly disastrous election resulted from them, er, not listening to the people. What would he have us do, stockpile bog-rolls in case 70's terrace projectiles make a comeback?

Those seeking political gain from this extraordinary global crisis should never be given the time of day once it passes (as it will.)

 

Nobody should be politicising this but it nonetheless alarms me that people are starting to use requests not to policitise this as a way to shut down legitimate questions about why we are pursing a strategy that runs contrary to what other countries are doing, contrary to WHO advice and contrary to the actions taken by those countries that do appear to have the outbreak under control.

We are being guided by science but nonetheless using different scientific advice to the scientific advice being followed by other countries, including countries with direct experience of containing pandemics that we lack.

In particular, the decision to no longer track or test cases that can be treated at home means we no longer know how and where the virus is spreading and that means - if the government’s models are wrong - we will not have the days to change course.

I have no desire to criticise the government on a political basis but people will die if the government get this wrong and it is vital that appropriate scientific scrutiny is not dismissed.

9 hours ago, Robin-hugh-blind said:

My view is based on information given by members in verious parts of the military and civil service and may well be 'full of it' as you say. And I hope so.

But overwhelming priority for them seems to be how to control or predict public reactions. 

All I was alluding to is that it's not far fetched to see the government soften particular bits of public information for our own good and that is what there job is. 

Obviously the lefty's will cry but in the real world this kind of tactic (when used appropriately) can save lives and money. 

The problem is applying conventional solutions to unconventional problems. I would utterly agree in the vast majority of situations you do your best to manage the flow of information to avoid panic and manage public reactions.

But that does not work when:

1) there is a crisis occurring in multiple countries at once and it is utterly unrealistic that people will not find out what other countries are doing and what is going on in the countries where this hit before it hit us.

2) it is information every single member of the public has a life or death stake in. It is easy to blame the leaker but, in this case, it was utter and staggering naivety to assume the information would not be leaked because anyone who saw it would want people they cared about to know.
 

3) you have already lost control of the narrative to a point where panic has set in

4) the public are inevitably going to find out the reality sooner or later.

Ordinarily, I would not disagree at all on the need to control information but they ceases to apply in cases where information cannot be controlled. I sincerely hope your contacts in the civil service and military and their superiors realise pronto that this is not an ordinary situation and will not be contained by treating it as such. These sorts of mistakes will cost lives.

6 hours ago, pillred said:

Funny how we managed for 100s of years before we joined the EU, don't worry I'm sure we will be fine we usually are.

Not getting into Brexit because this is neither time or place but your last thoughts were undoubtedly shared by the Roman Empire before its collapse, the great nations of Europe as tensions escalated in 1914, the citizens of Weimar Republic when the Nazis got voted in, Nicholas Ceausecu as he stepped on the balcony to deliver his speech and the Russian Monarchy in 2017.

Every civilisation in history is usually fine until it suddenly no longer is.

10 minutes ago, Robin-hugh-blind said:

The British public cannot be trusted with the truth. Would instantly descend into chaos if people were overwhelmed. 

 

Part of the government's responsibility is to control the inevitable chaos. And BS is very much part of that. 

 

Things are already descending into chaos. And there was no way on Earth this report would be suppressed. You cannot control chaos by trying to hide things that are bound to come out very quickly indeed.

Another example of what I mean about poor communication leading to worrying news announcements:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/uk-coronavirus-crisis-to-last-until-spring-2021-and-could-see-79m-hospitalised?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

What on Earth is the point of secret briefings to Senior NHS managers that contradict what we have been told publicly?

Inevitably things like this are going to leak out and erode confidence as it creates a sense that we are not being told the truth.

We urgently need to be trusted with the truth about how bad this will get and what we should expect. There is nothing to be gained by any other approach.

29 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

As someone who it seems to have an underlying condition, type 2 diabetes (and only one kidney) I would welcome greater clarity. I would be happy to self isolate for several months, provided I could have delivery of those provisions I need, but remain unclear as to the need when I possess no symptoms of the virus. We are being told that all of the 35 who have sadly died thus far had underlying health conditions, but that in itself doesn't seem enough. I don't wish to pry into anyone's grief but it would assist me to know how many of the 35 had type 2 diabetes, or have some indication of the severity of the underlying conditions that caused the tragic loss of life. 

Same here. I am 37, have an underlying heart condition since birth, a stent and low level hypertension but all are pretty asymptomatic. I run five to ten km on a semi-regular basis, had childhood asthma and can feel my chest a bit when running in cold weather but otherwise I would say my health is pretty good. I have the flu jab but, even before I got that, colds and flus have rarely hit me hard and I think I have only once had a chest infection. 

I really could do with more clarity on who and who is not vulnerable as I genuinely don’t have a clue if I am supposed to follow advice for vulnerable people or not. I really would like to know how worried I ought to be. 

4 minutes ago, dave36 said:

There is a shortage of resources in the NHS - surely 38900 negatives show poor recognition of patients symptoms!

Not necessarily - the symptoms are very similar to cold or flu. Surely better to be on the safe side? Especially as a lot of those were before we knew it had taken hold in the UK. It would also include people in quarantine or who had come into contact with infected people and where infection needed to be ruled out. 

2 minutes ago, mozo said:

From the Guardian piece shared on this thread previously...

Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, has explained that part of the reason for not embracing bans is to encourage “herd immunity”.

Apologies - I stand corrected. But still Matt Hancock is saying the opposite:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/matt-hancock-on-herd-immunity-and-coronavirus-1-6562302

Clarity is needed urgently. 

3 hours ago, MarcusX said:

With respect, they are experts in their field. Not saying they can't be wrong, but I'd trust their ideas based on research and data over the general public

I think a lot of the problem is the lack of clarity.

For example, there is a strong belief that the government's policy is to push for "herd immunity" and everyone is treating that as fact but, as far as I can tell, nobody has ever said that is the government strategy and the government have now explicitly said that it is not their strategy at all. It is far from clear whether this was ever their strategy or simply some journalists' interpretation of the society.

Similarly, earlier Matt Hancock said that over-70s - and possibly those with underlying health conditions - would need to self-isolate for up to four months but now it appears he may have meant minimise social contact, not self-isolate completely, and it is unclear whether or not those under 70 with underlying health conditions are included.

My worry is not necessarily the government approach - I am not wholly clear on the government approach and I am not an epidemiologist, or even someone who was quite certain what an epidemiologist was until about three weeks ago - but the fact the government is losing control of the narrative and not being clear enough on what they are trying to do so people can understand the plan and the reasons for it.

I think the only way to get things back on track is for them to treat us like adults and be transparent and explicit about what the steps are over the next few months and who is going to be asked to do what and in what order. The reality is people cannot trust the government's plan if they don't tell us what that plan is and I think a lot of the lack of clarity and frustration is not necessarily because the government is doing the wrong things but because we don't really know exactly what they are doing and what the reasoning is. As it stands, the uncertainty is making us fear there is an inadequate or flawed response and I can't see a way around that beyond clear information. 

3 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

That's worrying as I have my dad, living on his own at 83. He's fiercely independent and I try and pop round a couple of times a week and speak to him most days. Yes, he's a fit 83 but I still don't know whether to keep going round. I'm in and out of hospitals all day at work so am possibly more likely than most to pick this bloody thing up. The last thing I want to do is expose the old fella to more risk!

What to do for the best? 

I honestly think the best thing to do is be honest and give him the choice. If he is healthy and has the ability to make an informed decision then it should be his decision. Explain you are concerned, be honest about what you think the risks are and let him decide what he wants you to do.

22 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

I fear that this crisis may run a long course yet and we’ve only seen the start of the disruption

(Some posts early in this thread are priceless)

As it stands, 

Start planning to aim to finish this season by The end of the year, or end of Dec - Breathing room , hopefully , maybe

if season finished before Dec - Fill with compact FA Cup
 

 

Jan - May 21

Each Division split into two halves , North & South (Game wise home & away = a half season )

Top two in each Premier League Group qualify for Champions League, and a Mega Play Off for the title

Bottom two Clubs in each Premier League Group relegated 

Top Two in each Championship , and Divisional groups are promoted , Bottom two teams  in each group relegated 

 

Sorted

 

 

I like this idea. 

10 minutes ago, hodge said:

Interesting idea presented by someone on Sky Sports News, football delayed until mid summer here, season resumed and concluded then off season and next season starts in November. This would mean when it comes around to the Qatar world cup our season would actually align with the World cup schedule.

It is an interesting idea but presumably it would need to then be set back on track at some point? Would we need the 2022/2023 season to run half a season and everyone play each other once in a randomly allocated manner in order to get back on track?

50 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Seems to me that the UK approach is somewhat maverick - and potentially - quite clever.

Of course, this could massively backfire.

I get the impression (and I haven't read up massively on this, limiting my knowledge to news broadcasts), that the government want us to get ill. But in a controlled way, so that by the beginning of summer when this pandemic is expected to reach its peak, a lot of people will already have some form of natural immunity to the worst of it and the NHS are in a better position to cope.

If we go full shut down now, the panic and fear will be diluted by the time things are worse and/or the damage to the economy will be far worse.

Not saying that a price has been put on our heads in terms of the economic outcome to the country, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And with so many companies and organisations putting their own measures in place, a controlled slow down of spreading a virus we can't stop could be the best approach, especially if those most at risk take more precautions.

Granted, I have next to no faith in Boris, but there is something reassuring about the words from Chris Whitty.

 

Pretty much how I see it. As you say, it could backfire massively but I do understand the logic.

One other aspect I wonder about - given how much the approach is tied to behavioural economics - is whether sports events closing on their own accord and people starting to avoid social events voluntarily is actually in keeping with the plan. It wouldn't shock me all that much if some of the slowness to act is based on a belief that the public (and large organisations such as the Premier League and the EFL) will accept and process these measures better if they decide on a need for them themselves rather than having to do it because the government told them to. 

47 minutes ago, Wade Wilson said:

Genuine question, how many of you are still planning to go to upcoming City games? 
 

 

I have decided not to, although I have an underlying condition and my Mum has one too so I am being ultra cautious...

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I guess my point was that if the NHS wasn’t on its knees due to mahoosive underfunding, what other options might have been open to us?

Call me a snowflake, but I don’t really like the message (paraphrased) that we are gonna have to accept losing some loved ones.  Might that be reduced under different options available to us.

To me the economics seems to be more important than the health.

Happy to be wrong, just the way I feel.

Totally get where you are coming from and I don’t think you are wrong but I think we are potentially facing something that would challenge even a well-funded health system. And, much as I hate the message that we are going to have to accept many of us losing loved ones, I wonder if that is a rare moment if the Prime Minister telling a truth that we might have to face up to in any case.

Don’t get me wrong - I am no fan at all of the Conservatives and what they have done to the health system and I think there is every reason to be cynical about whether their intentions are in good faith but I think a lot of countries are about to be overwhelmed by this and I don’t know how confident I am that other country’s measures will work any better than ours will.

40 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

Working in the NHS we follow the guidelines from the experts. As would our government. People trying to gain political points are pretty sad . 

To be fair, there are two very different scientific approaches taking place at the moment.

Most of Europe seems to be trying to nip it in the bud in the short term and aiming to stop it before it takes hold.

Our government essentially appear to have conceded that it isn't something that can be nipped in the bud in the short-term - or at least not without causing a recurrence at a later point - and are essentially accepting it will become widespread and trying to manage that. I get the logic - especially around the idea that introducing measures too early will mean people cease follow them at crucial times - but I can also see why people feel the government is not doing enough. I believe the Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Medical Officer are being sincere in the advice they give but can absolutely get why people look at the fact we are going in a completely different direction to the science elsewhere and feel a bit concerned and alarmed by that.

Hopefully our approach will prove to be the right one but it is impossible to be sure. And I think anyone choosing to work from home, minimise social contact and avoid crowds is doing a very sensible thing, irrespective of government advice. 

1 hour ago, phantom said:

Was in Manchester working for a few days, this morning a few of us felt a bit rough with sore throat and high temperatures, we just put it down to a late night last night. 

We found out one of the managers we were with yesterday has been told to go into self isolation after phoning 111.

Obviously this is reported to senior management, we then get a message saying we've all got to get off of the premises as soon as possible and work from home until further notice. 

Typically I was all over the UK next week at meetings so I need to cancel everything. 

Now stood on the train back from Manchester to Bristol in the vestibule area as don't want to risk passing anything on

Am sure it's just a head cold but feel rough

Hope it is just a cold but must be a frustrating and scary thing - look after yourself.

Three Leicester players in isolation...