Boris Press conference

This kind of stuff is making me angry. If they close schools grand parents end up looking after the kids.

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2020/02/heres-what-coronavirus-does-body

There are others, but that was a quick link I found.

 

I did listen and they didn't say that. They didn't say more drastic measures would help. They said they're not going to do that yet because it absolutely won't help at the moment and make a lot of other things worse.If and when such action is called for then it will be implemented.

 

Don't worry, you can test yourself by holding your breath for 10 seconds, and cure yourself by drinking water every 15 minutes. What bilge people believe on social media...

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...claiming-to-be-from-stanford-dont-believe-it/

 

They said that drastic steps would slow the cases but at some point you have to lift those measures then cases would spike again.
They also said that the spread of the virus is not inevitable so the hope is to control it as much as possible.
Now that may or may not happen. And the drastic measures in other countries may or may not work. At this point it's all theory and speculation.

 

They didn’t though? They said that staying at home yourself if you have symptoms would limit it by 20-25%, you and your household staying at home would limit it by another 25%, so approaching 50%, but they don’t see the need for that just yet.

 

Everything is theory and speculation. That's the problem.

I would prefer the government to err on the side of caution.

 

They are being cautious, they are worried that if we were to go into a "lockdown" or similar too early it would be counter productive.
That we would reach the end of it and the virus would just start spreading again. The hard thing to accept is that the virus is going to spread and it is going to kill a lot more people. Nothing is going to change that. So the only question is how to control that spread for the best.

 

Basically they are telling people with symptoms to stay at home to slow the spread down not limit it, those are 2 different things. They know not everyone with the virus will stay at home, either because they don't know they have it or because they choose not to. But if some do it will slow the spread which is the desired outcome.

 

Thanks, and I have taken the time to read it, but I can’t see where it references younger, healthy patients ending up with those (rather frightening) symptoms of the more severe cases.

 

You are correct. However, I believe more can be done.

The main things that they should have done, for me is to advise against non-essential travel, public transport and advise people to work from home, where possible.

 

It doesn't but those are symptoms of the disease, as opposed to it just being a mild cold. Severe ones, yes, but symptoms nonetheless. It also doesn't reference it only affecting the elderly in the article, unlike most other articles about the virus.

I'm not saying that everyone that gets it will end up like that. That's just completely untrue, but (as far as I understand) anybody can get those long lasting (even permanent) effects, even if the disease doesn't kill them. That's why I feel the mortality rate doesn't quite do this disease justice.

 

I think that will come when the virus has spread more. Again it's a hard policy for the public to take to as we know something bad is coming so we want action now. Again I'm ot saying they are right or wrong as I have no capacity to judge that. I'm sure a counter argument could be made by some other expert.

 

We're roughly 13 days behind Italy. We're likely worse equipped than them to cope. I would think that we should be taking more steps than we are to try and slow the exponential spread. Telling people to stay at home if they have a cough and don't go on a cruise if you're over 70 and in bad shape isn't going to do much. Particularly when the advice is delivered in a press conference where the overall attitude is "we don't need to do much at this stage."

Even if we don't close the schools surely we should be telling people to make what sensible adjustments they can - work from home when possible etc. Apparently we've moved out of the containment phase. What was the containment phase? It seems to me to have consisted mainly of doing f*ck all.

Co-ordinating a response necessarily involves the balancing of human lives against economic factors. It's callous, but it's true. I just think we're prioritising the economy too highly.

 

You’ve put it better than I did.

I’ve found myself getting too emotional when talking about this, as I just feel like people are not taking it seriously enough really

 

I'm a grandparent whose grandkids live with me. Closing schools sounds like a great idea to me - I'd rather have them home with me than picking the virus up at school and bringing it home to me.

 

Mmm.. but you are hardly representative of the population as a whole.

 

Source? Edit: seen the article thanks.

 

Yes. They look after the kids so they don't contract the virus at school. Alternatively they could go to school, significantly increase the risk of contracting it and bringing it home to parents grandparents et al.
FFS.