Boris Press conference

What do you do in three weeks when someone else has the virus and the chain starts again?

 

What can he do though which has any long term effect other than either locking everyone up under house arrest for 18 months or locking everyone up for three weeks and then sealing the country up, closing the borders completely for 18 months? Anything else is simply delaying the inevitable by a few weeks.

The actual best solution to really minimising the amount of people who dies from this virus is to actually intentionally infect the fit and healthy and split the country into two groups for a few weeks but it will never happen

 

In my opinion, as I've stated above, the PM should have advised the population to work from home, where possible, avoid public transport, where possible and avoid making non-essential journeys outside.

Closing schools, banning events etc. I don't really know. What I've mentioned however, will barely impact people but will make a huge difference at this stage.

 

I don't really think that would make much difference. Those who work from home still have to leave the house at some point.

If anything shouldn't the advice be "if you know somebody at risk. The elderly or the vulnerable. Avoid them. Do not visit them. Tell them to stay at home".

As I said that will never happen and whilever it doesn't happen then any other measure won't work imo of course.

 

Some people read the media reports too much, rather than actually listening to The Government and their medical advisors.

Sadiq Khan was on LBC today - he admitted he’s no Boris fan, but the advice the Government are giving is in line what Medical and Scientific professionals are saying, and that to him, it does make total sense. They have questioned and probed the advice themselves and have been impressed and satisfied with their replies.

It’s not easy, but pointing to what other countries do, isn’t always the answer. I think Ireland have gone too early with their schools closures for example.

 

Stop with your FFS, not called for

 

But that gives two options.
1. Allow kids to go to school where there is a high chance they will get the virus and advise that where possible we keep the elderly grandparents away from the family. But accept that there is a chance the elderly grandparents could contract the virus from elsewhere. Pro: less chance of the kids passing the virus on to at risk grandparents. Con: much higher chance of relatively 'safe' kids contracting it.
2. Put the elderly grandparents into much higher contact with the family than usual. Keep the kids off school to lower their risk of getting the virus. But accept that the kids could contract the virus from elsewhere. Pro: less chance of kids having virus. Con: much higher chance of kids passing it on to at risk grandparents if they do have it.

Which of those is actually better? I don't know the answer to that.

 

This is exactly what the government haven't done, though. They haven't advised anything, other than staying at home if you have symptoms and not going on cruises if you're over 70.

 

I think it is because there's some seriously wrong headed thinking going on.
My partner has asthma and so does her daughter. Do you seriously think the two of them are safer with her daughter in school every day or here at home with just the three of us? As I'm now sixty i'll accept the role of grandparent in this model. Am i safer with the kid currently healthy and at home or in school exposed to 400 other kids daily?

 

They don't have much chance of passing it on to grandparents if they're currently clear and have reduced social contact. It's a no brainer.

 

Well yes if you can ensure this chain is followed precisely then yes.
1. Lock kids in the house.
2. Lock parents in the house.
3. Have no visitors or deliveries.
4. Drive between your house and grandparents house without coming into contact with anyone else.

The kids pretty much will pass it on if they have it and stay at the grandparents house with them. You have to be 100% certain that they don't have it. Can you be 100% certain? Thats the problem

 

Boris listened to the advice of scientists, before making a decision.
He isn’t following orders.

If he was he’d have been tested for the virus having been in contact with someone who’s tested positive.

Fair enough to defend his (flawed) decision making, but don’t blame the scientific advice he’s not following.

 

I know which solution i feel safer with and I'm outta here before i lose my temper with someone.

 

I think there may be a short period where schools and other services are suspended but it's more down to the timing of it.

There are something like 30,000 excess winter deaths in the UK every year, due to annual flu strains and all of the other "normal" winter illnesses, isolation and lock down aren't on anyone's radar for that.

Senior medics are generally in agreement with the government advice as it will hopefully allow those that do need treatment and ITU beds to get them when they need it (delaying rather than containing). The lack of ITU/HDU is a product of years of running down services, but that's a separate debate.

It's a test for society as a whole, hopefully people will understand that everyone doing their bit, no matter how small, is for the greater good. Wash hands, catch your sneezes, stay at home if you're told to do so, don't buy in a panic potentially denying those that really need medication the access to it and generally look out for each other.

The vulnerable are the same vulnerable groups as for any virus.

It's important to keep a sense of perspective on this, not easy with modern media. But, most people will be absolutely fine with this virus.

 

You should definitely do whatever you need to take care of yourself and your family. There's no right or wrong answer and everyone's situation is different

 

He wasn't in close contact with her. He was at an event she was also at but wasn't in close contact with her and the advice there is to not get tested

 

It's been stated tonight (see channel 4 news) that countries who have locked down in the far East have seen a vast reduction in cases.
My question how long does this virus survive inside a host of in the outside environment. If it's a 2 week gestation period then you'd have a window of time to eradicate the virus highly populated areas. It's about restricting the virus and mitigating the stress on our medics. There's no silver bullet but this a crisis which could kill thousands of people in our country. The economies of the world will be screwed no matter what happens. However to have an effective lock down you need to have things in place, namely utilities staying online and access to food for those most in need.
We're a matter days or maybe hours from being in Italy's position. Today we're at an unofficial 10k Mark, by Monday if no measures are in place to curb social gatherings that will be 50k+.

 

The ‘story’ is that he’s been ‘in contact’ and is refusing a test because he .’has no symptoms’.

IMHO that’s a terrible message.

further the government stance is ‘business as usual’ so if you’re suffering from cancer or you’re vulnerable, and you’re required to visit a govt building, you’re expected to turn up. So we’re blindly putting people at risk, I don’t believe for a second that scientists gave that advice.

 

Yes they have seen a reduction but only a temporary one unless you can isolate every single person with the virus completely until they have basically either recovered or died because you can't give them medical help whilst completely isolating them and if you allow the infected to pass it on to anyone the clit hasn't been eradicated and will just start again.

It really is a tough one. Could we see a situation where untested vaccines are used?

 

That's a good question about vaccines mate. I believe at time it was reported the initial Ebola virus vaccines hadn't gone through the usual mega restrictive and vigorous tests before commensing trials. The Ebola threat was obviously different due to its potency on all humans who came into contact with it.
Trail vaccinations of any kind I'm afraid may be met with resistance due to the ever growing numbers of anti-vaxers.