Coronavirus.

[Master29]

I was once told even the cold virus is a nasty little thing as anything that has the ability to continually outfox science must be a tough little son of a bitch. The whole thing about some viruses is their continual ability to evolve and mutate which of course is true of life in general but in ways that aren't yet understood. Despite the knowledge we have gained in the 200 years or so since the discovery of microbiology we are still just scratching the surface (Not intended) in terms of understanding how these little blighters work and how to deal with them.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm finding it concerning the number of things saying "we're shutting down until April 3rd". This feels like the "finished by christmas" ww1 attitude.

People will think that in a few weeks, maybe early april, maybe mid april, things will start "getting back to normal", and at that point we'll have a massive spike in cases, but won't have the nuclear "shut everything down" option.

I'd like to know if anyone was not reassured after watching the full press conference (the one with Spock and McCoy - the chief scientist and the chief medical officer -- the guy in the middle was the womaniser with the dodgy hair). I was very reassured that the scientists were in charge and Johnson wasn't.

Is that not precisely the problem we're all facing ?

We all know that there will have to be some sort of shut down, but no one knows how long.

 

[Mathew S]

Slightly off topic, but I honestly find the BBC World Service a far better source than the BBC domestic news. I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to though.

Couldn't agree more.

I'm finding it concerning the number of things saying "we're shutting down until April 3rd". This feels like the "finished by christmas" ww1 attitude.

People will think that in a few weeks, maybe early april, maybe mid april, things will start "getting back to normal", and at that point we'll have a massive spike in cases, but won't have the nuclear "shut everything down" option.

I'd like to know if anyone was not reassured after watching the full press conference (the one with Spock and McCoy - the chief scientist and the chief medical officer -- the guy in the middle was the womaniser with the dodgy hair). I was very reassured that the scientists were in charge and Johnson wasn't.

Yes, I was reassured. I've only recently re-entered the science world as a lowly post-grad, but the Chief Medical Officer especially has a stellar reputation. And, I certainly feel more confident knowing that the response is being led by experts, and based on evidence.

 

[Master29]

I'd like to know if anyone was not reassured after watching the full press conference (the one with Spock and McCoy - the chief scientist and the chief medical officer -- the guy in the middle was the womaniser with the dodgy hair). I was very reassured that the scientists were in charge and Johnson wasn't.

As a bit of a Trekkie myself I was thinking of a character called Harry Mudd from that Star Trek era who perfectly encapsulates the man in the middle you're referring to.

 

[Mathew S]

Is that not precisely the problem we're all facing ?

We all know that there will have to be some sort of shut down, but no one knows how long.

Based on Thursdays press conference, they seem to be saying 13 - 16 weeks at least. That chimes with comments from the island of Ireland today about school closures (though they may have simply done the same back of an envelope calculation as me).

 

[miami]

Based on Thursdays press conference, they seem to be saying 13 - 16 weeks at least. That chimes with comments from the island of Ireland today about school closures (though they may have simply done the same back of an envelope calculation as me).

If we hold off for 3 or 4 more weeks
1) Shutdown will be less time
2) People will be more prepared
3) More people will have got the bug while we can cope with it

Nobody here, or on twitter or facebook or whatsapp, has the figures - those caught it, what the models say, how many beds are in use at the moment, what the contingency plans are, etc.

Suspending football until April 3rd seems to sew false expectations. "Suspending it until further notice" would be a far better statement (if it has to be suspended)

 

[Mogster]

I was once told even the cold virus is a nasty little thing as anything that has the ability to continually outfox science must be a tough little son of a bitch. The whole thing about some viruses is their continual ability to evolve and mutate which of course is true of life in general but in ways that aren't yet understood. Despite the knowledge we have gained in the 200 years or so since the discovery of microbiology we are still just scratching the surface (Not intended) in terms of understanding how these little blighters work and how to deal with them.

It’s more that there are so many rhinovirus’s (150+ known types iirc) that cause mild upper respiratory infections. We don’t produce an effective immune response either, the antibodies generated target non essential areas of the virus. The numbers of variants, the low level symptoms and the fact our immune response to them is so poor makes vaccines a difficult, and uneconomic... proposition.

 

[bramling]

Based on Thursdays press conference, they seem to be saying 13 - 16 weeks at least. That chimes with comments from the island of Ireland today about school closures (though they may have simply done the same back of an envelope calculation as me).

I can’t see any form of meaningful shut down being able to be sustained that long. The money still needs to flow and anything longer than a couple of weeks will seriously interfere with that.

 

[yorksrob]

Based on Thursdays press conference, they seem to be saying 13 - 16 weeks at least. That chimes with comments from the island of Ireland today about school closures (though they may have simply done the same back of an envelope calculation as me).

What worries me is that the current Government position is that people would get fatigue after so many weeks and start going out after a few. If we lock down now, we would presumably be expected to stay at home indefinately !

 

[Bantamzen]

I was once told even the cold virus is a nasty little thing as anything that has the ability to continually outfox science must be a tough little son of a bitch. The whole thing about some viruses is their continual ability to evolve and mutate which of course is true of life in general but in ways that aren't yet understood. Despite the knowledge we have gained in the 200 years or so since the discovery of microbiology we are still just scratching the surface (Not intended) in terms of understanding how these little blighters work and how to deal with them.

The cold virus, or more accurately the family of cold viruses, are probably the most efficient and successful of all RNA based organisms. They are constantly able to evade our best efforts to eradicate them. And the reality is we will probably never be able to, such is the relative beauty of having simpler genomes that they have their hosts replicate, and help to mutate.

Is that not precisely the problem we're all facing ?

We all know that there will have to be some sort of shut down, but no one knows how long.

Given that we are a capitalist, service sector based country, any lockdown of anything more than a couple of weeks will be a recipe for civil unrest, the consequences of which would be far more damaging than COVID-19. So there has to be a defined end game, because if not when people start to run out of money things will get a lot worse.

 

[AndrewE]

I haven't managed to read all the thread, but this article is interesting: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/z3bw85/dont-let-coronavirus-scare-you-away-from-public-transit says (about 1/3 the way down)

The most relevant study, though, was a 2011 modeling of how a hypothetical influenza epidemic would spread throughout New York City, specifically focusing on the role the subway would play. The model found only four to five percent of transmissions would occur on the subway. Instead, most infections would occur within households (30 percent), at school (24.5 percent), and in other community settings (32.2 percent), such as entertainment districts, community meetings, bars, restaurants, etc. Ironically, these results are the exact opposite of the 2005 survey cited above where people believed home was safest and public transit was riskiest. This model’s findings suggest “interventions targeted at subway riders would be relatively ineffective in containing the epidemic.”

Therefore, riding public transportation in and of itself is probably not where people get sick. It is all the places riding transit enables them to go. If you use public transit, you’re likely using it to go to a big office building with one set of doors or elevators for hundreds or even thousands of people. You’re likely going to coffee shops and restaurants and standing on street corners huddled next to lots of other people.

and lots more...

 

[yorksrob]

The cold virus, or more accurately the family of cold viruses, are probably the most efficient and successful of all RNA based organisms. They are constantly able to evade our best efforts to eradicate them. And the reality is we will probably never be able to, such is the relative beauty of having simpler genomes that they have their hosts replicate, and help to mutate.



Given that we are a capitalist, service sector based country, any lockdown of anything more than a couple of weeks will be a recipe for civil unrest, the consequences of which would be far more damaging than COVID-19. So there has to be a defined end game, because if not when people start to run out of money things will get a lot worse.

Quite, which is why the current approach made sense.

However, according to the BBC, this view is now not shared unanimously with the scientific community (sorry can't post a link as am on a crappy mobile phone).

 

[bramling]

The cold virus, or more accurately the family of cold viruses, are probably the most efficient and successful of all RNA based organisms. They are constantly able to evade our best efforts to eradicate them. And the reality is we will probably never be able to, such is the relative beauty of having simpler genomes that they have their hosts replicate, and help to mutate.



Given that we are a capitalist, service sector based country, any lockdown of anything more than a couple of weeks will be a recipe for civil unrest, the consequences of which would be far more damaging than COVID-19. So there has to be a defined end game, because if not when people start to run out of money things will get a lot worse.

This is my view, people are simply not going to incarcerate themselves for weeks on end - it just won’t work for numerous reasons.

The government has a very difficult problem to reconcile - keeping things ticking over whilst quite literally having to minimise deaths amongst the elderly population. It would seem that “social distancing” whilst attempting to carry on normally as far as realistically possible is the probably the only viable option, but clearly elderly people are going to have to take great care and stay in as far as possible.

An even bigger issue may of course arise with people who form part of the working population but have underlying health issues. I can think of a few in my work who are clearly extremely unhealthy, I don’t envy being in that position one bit.

 

[Mathew S]

However, according to the BBC, this view is now not shared unanimously with the scientific community (sorry can't post a link as am on a crappy mobile phone).

Scientists are a fickle and awkward bunch who are used to arguing about results and theories. There's *always* disagreement in the scientific community about pretty much everything. It's not wrong to say there's disagreement, but I don't think it's something to read anything into.

 

[edwin_m]

It isn't hysteria ( can we try and find a grip please?) It is people looking at what the government have said ( worst public health crisis in a generation & many people will die before their time) and compared that with the actions taken ( don't go on a cruise. Stay home if you have a sniffle) then compared that with actions elsewhere ( full shut down/closed borders/flight restrictions/home quarantine), thought a bit about Johnson and his history and then thought hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm not sure and taken steps to prepare to look after themselves and their families.

The government have left decisions about things like football to the governing bodies and they have thought better safe than sorry. I cant really blame them for that!

I will say that IF you listened to the full press conference the decisions made make perfect sense. Most wont have heard that. They will have heard soundbites and made their conclusion. That conclusion is that the government haven't done enough. That was the chat on the train on the way to work yesterday. That was the chat in the pub. That was the chat at the society I went to today. Confidence in the message is lower than it should be. That is a bad situation to be in at what we are told is the early stages of mitigation.

Good post.

I thought the line being put out by the press conference made good sense, but there are now serious objections from scientists, such as: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51892402

In an open letter, a group of 229 scientists from UK universities say the government's current approach will put the NHS under additional stress and "risk many more lives than necessary".

The signatories also criticised comments made by Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, about managing the spread of the infection to make the population immune.

The scientists also questioned the government's view that people will become fed up with restrictions if they were imposed too soon.

The public objection may be more around the implicit admission that a lot of people are going to die. However that may be inevitable regardless of the strategy - I suspect this may just come back in the countries where stricter controls have been imposed, as soon as they are relaxed.

I also believe Boris's track record of dishonesty could land him and us in big trouble here. Any sign that he's spinning it or not going 100% with the scientific advice and public confidence could collapse in a big way.

 

[Bantamzen]

Quite, which is why the current approach made sense.

However, according to the BBC, this view is now not shared unanimously with the scientific community (sorry can't post a link as am on a crappy mobile phone).

Honestly when it comes to medical advice, the BBC's rather apocalyptic approach to anything medical leaves me somewhat cynical. Now I know a number of scientists have written to the government about their concerns, but as yet I am unsure of their specific field of expertise. So until I read something to the contrary, I will be taking the advice of those that consult the government.

 

[yorksrob]

Scientists are a fickle and awkward bunch who are used to arguing about results and theories. There's *always* disagreement in the scientific community about pretty much everything. It's not wrong to say there's disagreement, but I don't think it's something to read anything into.

Honestly when it comes to medical advice, the BBC's rather apocalyptic approach to anything medical leaves me somewhat cynical. Now I know a number of scientists have written to the government about their concerns, but as yet I am unsure of their specific field of expertise. So until I read something to the contrary, I will be taking the advice of those that consult the government.

Indeed. There's nowt else we can do.

 

[bramling]

Scientists are a fickle and awkward bunch who are used to arguing about results and theories. There's *always* disagreement in the scientific community about pretty much everything. It's not wrong to say there's disagreement, but I don't think it's something to read anything into.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the “expert” cadre simply doesn’t have all the answers to this. I think people will become increasingly unsettled as all of us are generally used to having everything laid on and life managed for us in a fashion which is generally controlled, and now we’ve come up against something where to an extent we don’t yet know this isn’t going to apply.

Thankfully we very rarely have to face such difficult situations where there is no obvious right or wrong answer. Whatever Boris does will only ever be a best guess, hopefully well informed by what appears to be the best advice at the time.

It doesn’t bode well that the wider population appears to be having a flap over toilet rolls whilst all this is going on.

 

[Mathew S]

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the “expert” cadre simply doesn’t have all the answers to this. I think people will become increasingly unsettled as all of us are generally used to having everything laid on and life managed for us in a fashion which is generally controlled, and now we’ve come up against something where to an extent we don’t yet know this isn’t going to apply.

Thankfully we very rarely have to face such difficult situations where there is no obvious right or wrong answer. Whatever Boris does will only ever be a best guess, hopefully well informed by what appears to be the best advice at the time.

It doesn’t bode well that the wider population appears to be having a flap over toilet rolls whilst all this is going on.

Excellent post. As you say, people are bad at coping with uncertainty; which is awkward, because scientists live by it. It's a huge clash of cultures, and it's going to be very, very challenging.

 

[Mathew S]

The public objection may be more around the implicit admission that a lot of people are going to die. However that may be inevitable regardless of the strategy - I suspect this may just come back in the countries where stricter controls have been imposed, as soon as they are relaxed.

I suspect that many (most?) people have yet to accept that no amount of lockdowns, cancelled events, closed schools, or walled-off borders is going to stop this. The denial is understandable, contemplating deaths numbering into the tens of thousands (if we're lucky) is distressing to say the least. If there's one criticism I have of the government's advisors, it's not standing up and being blunt about the harsh realities that we may all be about to face.

 

[yorksrob]

I certainly hope that Western Governments combine to persuade communist China to do something about the conditions that enabled this virus to flourish.

SARS was a warning that it didn't bother to heed.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect that many (most?) people have yet to accept that no amount of lockdowns, cancelled events, closed schools, or walled-off borders is going to stop this. The denial is understandable, contemplating deaths numbering into the tens of thousands (if we're lucky) is distressing to say the least. If there's one criticism I have of the government's advisors, it's not standing up and being blunt about the harsh realities that we may all be about to face.

I'd say we should be facing up to the need for the vulnerable to self-isolate to get through it. From what I'm reading today some older people have the attitude that "if it's my time to go, so be it", and they'd rather make the best of their remaining time. Which if they have fully thought it through is probably fair enough, as long as it doesn't result in wider spread.

 

[bramling]

I suspect that many (most?) people have yet to accept that no amount of lockdowns, cancelled events, closed schools, or walled-off borders is going to stop this. The denial is understandable, contemplating deaths numbering into the tens of thousands (if we're lucky) is distressing to say the least. If there's one criticism I have of the government's advisors, it's not standing up and being blunt about the harsh realities that we may all be about to face.

It probably doesn’t help that there’s an element of the population being split into different camps:

1) Younger people who seemingly don’t have to worry *too* much, regarding themselves at least

2) Elderly people or those with underlying issues who must be pretty worried

3) Those in the middle, for example people in 50s and 60s who seemingly are slightly more at risk but probably not massively so.

Unfortunately this gives three groups all with different needs, and a massive amount of uncertainty. It’s a very difficult one for any government to reconcile. With hindsight it probably would have been better to have shut down our border at the first sign of trouble, but that would have introduced many issues of its own.

 

[Master29]

I'd say we should be facing up to the need for the vulnerable to self-isolate to get through it. From what I'm reading today some older people have the attitude that "if it's my time to go, so be it", and they'd rather make the best of their remaining time. Which if they have fully thought it through is probably fair enough, as long as it doesn't result in wider spread.

Agreed, so long as it doesn`t involve others not ready to go.

I certainly hope that Western Governments combine to persuade communist China to do something about the conditions that enabled this virus to flourish.

SARS was a warning that it didn't bother to heed.

Didn't this virus mutate from a similar strain to the SARS virus. I was under the impression it had in which case I agree.

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed, so long as it doesn`t involve others not ready to go.



Didn't this virus mutate from a similar strain to the SARS virus. I was under the impression it had in which case I agree.

It was traced back to unhygenic food preparation areas, which was the case with SARS.

 

[Mogster]

Yes. The East Asian live animal markets in their cities have been identified as a serious global public health threat for some years now.

 

[Cowley]

If there's one criticism I have of the government's advisors, it's not standing up and being blunt about the harsh realities that we may all be about to face.

I think that the problem with that is that we’ve already seen how people react even with a softened down version of reality.
It might be better to feed the bad news in bit by bit when they feel that it can be taken on board rather than dumping everything on the population at once?

 

[Ianno87]

I think that the problem with that is that we’ve already seen how people react even with a softened down version of reality.
It might be better to feed the bad news in bit by bit when they feel that it can be taken on board rather than dumping everything on the population at once?

I guess the risk of 'softening down' is that overactive imagimations fill in the missing bits, wrongly and possibly overly pessimistically. Perhaps not helped by the often sensational UK press (which *needs* to bury its agendas and get properly factual and informative for a while)

 

[bramling]

I think that the problem with that is that we’ve already seen how people react even with a softened down version of reality.
It might be better to feed the bad news in bit by bit when they feel that it can be taken on board rather than dumping everything on the population at once?

Whichever way it is served up it is going to be badly received. I thought Boris got the balance right the other day with his honest but depressing speech. Likewise the strategy seems to be to emphasise that all the deaths so far have been people with major pre-existing health complications. If that prognosis changes then there could well be a very quick change in public reaction.

As someone else posted people generally aren’t good at coping with the unknown, and our generally high standard of living means we’re simply not often accustomed to serious unknowns. Someone at my work was faced with a review which introduced some uncertainty into his work future, which manifested itself into him developing a bizarre obsession with office lighting lux levels and turning on the rest of his team ultimately to the extent of developing a full-on paranoia that everyone was out to get him. The toilet rolls thing has echoes of this.

 

[bramling]

I guess the risk of 'softening down' is that overactive imagimations fill in the missing bits, wrongly and possibly overly pessimistically. Perhaps not helped by the often sensational UK press (which *needs* to bury its agendas and get properly factual and informative for a while)

To be fair I don’t think the press coverage has been particularly dis-factual - by contrast to social media. However the quantity of news coverage has been an issue. One person who may perhaps have benefited from this is of course a certain Mr A Salmond, who would otherwise have been the headline over the next couple of weeks.