Coronavirus.

[Mogster]

Cancellation of sports events is already happening elsewhere and it's only a matter of time before it happens here too. All Italian sport has been cancelled until at least 3rd April and the Indian Wells (Southern California) tennis tournament, the world's biggest outside of the Grand Slams, due to start today was postponed at barely 24 hours notice. Despite everything being said to the contrary I think the Olympic Games could well be a casualty also. Oh and you can forget music festivals altogether. While I agree that some of the reaction to Covid-19 looks over the top the reality is that much of what we consider normal life, certainly as far as recreation goes, will have to be put on hold. The researchers are hard at it but we're at least 12 months away from a viable vaccination programme. Until then...

I can possibly understand the rationale for cancelling international events but not domestic sport when the schools remain open and public transport is still operating. If the games are played behind closed doors people will go and crowd into pubs to watch it there, which sounds worse...

From the WHO reports from China and Korea transmission seems to be almost exclusively within families who are caring for sick relatives. Very close contact. People aren’t becoming infected by contact in the wider community often, at the shops etc. In that case banning public gatherings will have little effect, as seems to be occurring in Italy. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen as the government may want to be seen to be doing something, even if there’s no scientific evidence to support the measures...

 

[Bletchleyite]

From the WHO reports from China and Korea transmission seems to be almost exclusively within families who are caring for sick relatives. Very close contact. People aren’t becoming infected by contact in the wider community often, at the shops etc. In that case banning public gatherings will have little effect, as seems to be occurring in Italy. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen as the government may want to be seen to be doing something, even if there’s no scientific evidence to support the measures...

Italian politics are often quite corrupt and there is a huge value in being seen to do something. Though it's also possible that the version of the virus spreading there has mutated and is somehow more transmissible than the Chinese original. Or that there are ethnic differences in how it spreads.

China is probably the one to watch with regard to "what to do if the Government had absolute power and the culture went along with that".

 

[Mogster]

China is probably the one to watch with regard to "what to do if the Government had absolute power and the culture went along with that".

Yes. What’s occurring in China goes beyond healthcare and is looking very George Orwell. Yet the Twitterverse seems to think this is the model we should be following to ensure “public safety”

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....virus-public-monitoring-could-be-here-to-stay

Over the last two months, Chinese citizens have had to adjust to a new level of government intrusion.

Getting into one’s apartment compound or workplace requires scanning a QR code, writing down one’s name and ID number, temperature and recent travel history. Telecom operators track people’s movements while social media platforms like WeChat and Weibo have hotlines for people to report others who may be sick. Some cities are offering people rewards for informing on sick neighbours.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I can possibly understand the rationale for cancelling international events but not domestic sport when the schools remain open and public transport is still operating. If the games are played behind closed doors people will go and crowd into pubs to watch it there, which sounds worse...

The rationale is quite simple, to reduce potential exposure by reducing personal interactions. If it comes to it I'm sure an emergency regulation banning the screening of televised events in public places, including pubs, will do the trick. Given this evening's reports about the widening spread of infections around western Europe it's surely just a matter of time before we have no choice but to introduce restrictions here.

From the WHO reports from China and Korea transmission seems to be almost exclusively within families who are caring for sick relatives. Very close contact. People aren’t becoming infected by contact in the wider community often, at the shops etc. In that case banning public gatherings will have little effect, as seems to be occurring in Italy. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen as the government may want to be seen to be doing something, even if there’s no scientific evidence to support the measures...

It appears the situation has snowballed so quickly in Italy due to their health system having been too slow in bringing in contingency measures right at the start. They also have statistically the oldest population in Europe meaning they have more potentially vulnerable people than elsewhere. And now they are trying to lock down the whole country. As for how the infection spreads we are still learning the details but it does appear that the virus is relatively robust meaning it can survive outside the body longer than most hence all the advice about more regular washing of hands. The problem for the authorities is getting the balance right in a field in which they are utterly dependent on expert advice: there's no way to spin this one away!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Wasn't that St Helier Hospital, which is more SW London than SE.

Nope, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich - which I believe is more SE London...

St Helier has had a fatality, though. a 70 year old male with long term underlying health conditions.

 

[AM9]

Nope, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich - which I believe is more SE London...

Ah OK, I assumed that it was referring to the latest death, i.e. No. 5 at St Helier this evening.

 

[AM9]

The rationale is quite simple, to reduce potential exposure by reducing personal interactions. If it comes to it I'm sure an emergency regulation banning the screening of televised events in public places, including pubs, will do the trick. Given this evening's reports about the widening spread of infections around western Europe it's surely just a matter of time before we have no choice but to introduce restrictions here. ...

I think the general public is ignorant of just how much power the Government has in a situation such as this, - it borders on wartime powers. It is likely that private hospitals will be commandeered to take on much of the non-COVID19 load under NHS supervision. The private hospitals are licenced to operate in the UK and it would become a condition of that licence.
With powers like that, shutting down sports and live televising of certain events would be done without question if it was deemed necessary.

 

[bramling]

I think the general public is ignorant of just how much power the Government has in a situation such as this, - it borders on wartime powers. It is likely that private hospitals will be commandeered to take on much of the non-COVID19 load under NHS supervision. The private hospitals are licenced to operate in the UK and it would become a condition of that licence.
With powers like that, shutting down sports and live televising of certain events would be done without question if it was deemed necessary.

An interesting question is how might people here react should movement restrictions be introduced. I heard a comment today along the lines of “why should I isolate and lose pay when I’m not really at risk just so the baby boom old people don’t get the disease?”. Hopefully things won’t turn that nasty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An interesting question is how might people here react should movement restrictions be introduced. I heard a comment today along the lines of “why should I isolate and lose pay when I’m not really at risk just so the baby boom old people don’t get the disease?”. Hopefully things won’t turn that nasty.

It's a sort of valid point-ish. Those most at risk are to a fairly large extent the retired. Therefore it may make more sense for them to self-isolate, as this is less likely to be an issue economically, and if they stay at home, don't leave, and receive food etc from family dropping it off "round the back" and don't pick it up from there for say 3-4 days, then there is basically no chance at all of catching it even if, as it seems, it can be spread while asymptomatic.

 

[GusB]

The rationale is quite simple, to reduce potential exposure by reducing personal interactions. If it comes to it I'm sure an emergency regulation banning the screening of televised events in public places, including pubs, will do the trick. Given this evening's reports about the widening spread of infections around western Europe it's surely just a matter of time before we have no choice but to introduce restrictions here.

The government wouldn't have to go to such lengths. All that would be required is the disabling of viewing cards in pubs and other venues with subscriptions to sports channels. If an event is due to be screened on "council telly", leaning on the BBC and ITV to prevent broadcast would have the same effect. There would have to be some measures put in place for business subscribers to compensated financially, otherwise we'll have the situation where businesses are still paying for subscriptions (not cheap) while suffering a huge drop in revenue.

 

[Mogster]

The rationale is quite simple, to reduce potential exposure by reducing personal interactions. If it comes to it I'm sure an emergency regulation banning the screening of televised events in public places, including pubs, will do the trick. Given this evening's reports about the widening spread of infections around western Europe it's surely just a matter of time before we have no choice

My point was that cancelling public gatherings seems to be pointless when people are still using public transport, going to work, school etc daily. The WHO data from China and Korea suggests SARS CoV2 isn’t being transmitted from public interaction but mostly from prolonged exposure within families, really people caring for sick relatives. The sorts of measures being suggested seem to be ineffective in Italy which suggests the WHO are probably right. WHO recommendations are still just reinforcing hand and respiratory hygiene. In fact by keeping people in doors and close together the “lockdowns” could be making the situation worse...

I do think the government will be forced into some sort of action even if it knows it has little scientific basis. Just to be seen to be doing something. Meetings between the government and organizers of public events seem to have produced 2 reactions, either they would like the positive PR from being seen to be helping or say cancellation will cause them extreme financial hardship. The EPL may want to help, so in that case I can see games being played behind closed doors. Last games are 17/05 iirc.

 

[AM9]

An interesting question is how might people here react should movement restrictions be introduced. I heard a comment today along the lines of “why should I isolate and lose pay when I’m not really at risk just so the baby boom old people don’t get the disease?”. Hopefully things won’t turn that nasty.

The announcement that anybody who appears to have any type of respiratory issue, e.g. common colds, coughs etc., must self-isolate for 7 days could well be reinforced by penalties for not doing so. Those making such comments are in the minority so those who aren't selfish might well call them out. The powers that the Government has under the 2004 Civil Contingency Act would make severe penalties available to deal with, such actions. So however much these self-entitled morons think they are safe to disregard the health of others, they might find that losing a week's income might be the better option. A few high-profile prosecutions might focus their self-obsessed minds.

 

[AM9]

It's a sort of valid point-ish. Those most at risk are to a fairly large extent the retired. Therefore it may make more sense for them to self-isolate, as this is less likely to be an issue economically, and if they stay at home, don't leave, and receive food etc from family dropping it off "round the back" and don't pick it up from there for say 3-4 days, then there is basically no chance at all of catching it even if, as it seems, it can be spread while asymptomatic.

That's all very well, but the epidemic is predicted to be active for 3-6 months, so you are proposing that it would be better for people offer 55 to be cooped-up for that period. It isn't just a passing wave of a cold we're talking about. Don't forget, all other ailments aren't standing down whilst COVID 19 has it's free run, all people will still get all sorts of other life-threatening problems.

 

[Mogster]

For reference between 10-30,000 people in the UK die of colds and flu related illness every winter. So the current SARS CoV2 outbreak is occurring against that backdrop. Fortunately the current season has been on the lower side of those figures so the NHS isn’t particularly stressed.

In 2009 the UK Mexican “swine flu” H1N1 outbreak killed over 200 and had 100,000 new cases per week at its height.

When there’s a significant underlying condition and someone catches cold or flu and dies their cause of death will normally be reported as the underlying condition. So for “normal” seasonal flu the current reported SARS CoV2 deaths probably wouldn’t have been attributed to it.

 

[Bantamzen]

The announcement that anybody who appears to have any type of respiratory issue, e.g. common colds, coughs etc., must self-isolate for 7 days could well be reinforced by penalties for not doing so. Those making such comments are in the minority so those who aren't selfish might well call them out. The powers that the Government has under the 2004 Civil Contingency Act would make severe penalties available to deal with, such actions. So however much these self-entitled morons think they are safe to disregard the health of others, they might find that losing a week's income might be the better option. A few high-profile prosecutions might focus their self-obsessed minds.

How would the government enforce penalties for failing to self-isolate? That's a very dark road to be heading down, I know in China they are attempting such enforcement, including a mobile app that allows people to report others, but is this really the sort of power we want to allow the government to use?

However I am expecting that temporary bans on large gatherings, encouraging home working etc to be in place within a couple of weeks. We've already been polled on home working options in my department, and I know contingency plans are being drafted with a matter of urgency. I'm really not convinced that it will do any good, or again how it will be policed, or how you would deal with the almost guaranteed civil unrest. In Italy despite the "lockdown", a lot of people are just going about their normal business, so in reality it's effectiveness has to be brought into question.

 

[Mogster]

How would the government enforce penalties for failing to self-isolate? That's a very dark road to be heading down, I know in China they are attempting such enforcement, including a mobile app that allows people to report others, but is this really the sort of power we want to allow the government to use?

However I am expecting that temporary bans on large gatherings, encouraging home working etc to be in place within a couple of weeks. We've already been polled on home working options in my department, and I know contingency plans are being drafted with a matter of urgency. I'm really not convinced that it will do any good, or again how it will be policed, or how you would deal with the almost guaranteed civil unrest. In Italy despite the "lockdown", a lot of people are just going about their normal business, so in reality it's effectiveness has to be brought into question.

I work for the NHS and have been asked if I use public transport to travel to work and other questions regarding possible extended working. I’m wondering if I’ll be asked to not use public transport at some point, working from home is not an option.

 

[edwin_m]

From the WHO reports from China and Korea transmission seems to be almost exclusively within families who are caring for sick relatives. Very close contact. People aren’t becoming infected by contact in the wider community often, at the shops etc. In that case banning public gatherings will have little effect, as seems to be occurring in Italy. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen as the government may want to be seen to be doing something, even if there’s no scientific evidence to support the measures...

There must be some transmission between families otherwise the whole epidemic would shut down fairly quickly. The current status of transmission in China (and possibly also South Korea) may be due to restrictions on movement drastically reducing transmission other than within a household.

New cases are declining in China so in that narrow sense it may have worked. However the restrictions can't go on for ever, nor even until a vaccine is developed, so there's a risk that on lifting them the epidemic just re-starts. That suggest that, cruel as it sounds, it's better to carry on with something like normality over the summer period as if we're going to get widespread cases it's better to have them then than in winter.

As time goes by I hope a test will be available to tell if people have had the virus, are no longer infectious and have acquired immunity (assuming that happens with this virus, as I believe it has with all others except possibly HIV). Those people can carry on with their normal lives without risk of infecting or being infected, so help keep essential services and the economy in general going.

 

[Bantamzen]

I work for the NHS and have been asked if I use public transport to travel to work and other questions regarding possible extended working. I’m wondering if I’ll be asked to not use public transport at some point, working from home is not an option.

Its possible you might be asked to avoid public transport. Obviously for people like yourself home working is not an option, for me it is and being based in a large public sector hub I'm fully expecting to be asked to do so. But it does raise the question, what if health sector workers don't have access to cars?

 

[duncanp]

I believe one firm in Canary Wharf has already asked its workers not to use the tube, and told them it will pay for taxis instead.

Apart from the expense of doing so, how do you know that travelling by taxi is any safer?

• Has the taxi driver been exposed to the virus, either knowingly or unknowingly?
• Who last used the taxi before you, and were they exposed to the virus? If they were, then they will have touched surfaces in the taxi which means you could still pick it up?

 

[Mogster]

Its possible you might be asked to avoid public transport. Obviously for people like yourself home working is not an option, for me it is and being based in a large public sector hub I'm fully expecting to be asked to do so. But it does raise the question, what if health sector workers don't have access to cars?

I say the results of the workplace survey and only 2 out of around 30 used public transport to get to work.

Driving into Manchester every day would be a complete pain in the arse, especially if the roads are busier as people are being told to avoid public transport.

At Birmingham New Street [BHM] currently waiting for a delayed service. Never seen so many people washing their hands thoroughly...

 

[Bantamzen]

I say the results of the workplace survey and only 2 out of around 30 used public transport to get to work.

Driving into Manchester every day would be a complete pain in the arse, especially if the roads are busier as people are being told to avoid public transport.

At BHM currently waiting for a delayed service. Never seen so many people washing their hands thoroughly...

I've noticed that when going through Leeds station, and at work there are practically queues in the loos for the basins.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

https://twitter.com/BenFordham/status/1237242710408355847
It's dead set like the boxing day sales.
Can someone stop the planet. I want off!

 

[miami]

“why should I isolate and lose pay when I’m not really at risk just so the baby boom old people don’t get the disease?”. Hopefully things won’t turn that nasty.

After the last 4 years of generational divide?

A feature of this disease is that generally those with the most to lose from quarantine and lock down are the opposite group to those with the most to lose from catching it.

If a 70 year old has to stay inside for a month, they don't lose any pay, their pension is still paid.

If a 30 year old has to, they may well lose their business, or at least their job. Which means they can't pay rent, food will go on mounting credit card debt. All those relying on work from festivals, fr. One restaurant has recently shut down near me because bookings are down and the upcoming festivals are likely to be cancelled. The place was on the ropes already, covid just pushed it over the edge.

What happens with the infectious taxi driver who's taking NHS workers to the hospital because the buses are closed?

 

[miami]

Has the taxi driver been exposed to the virus, either knowingly or unknowingly?

One person, vs many on the tube

Who last used the taxi before you, and were they exposed to the virus? If they were, then they will have touched surfaces in the taxi which means you could still pick it up?

That doesn't seem to be a major form of transmission. It's spending 15 minutes in close proximity with someone. Sitting in the back of a taxi is safer than standing in someone's armpit on the northern line, but probably less safe than sitting on an empty tube or bus with minimal people traveling.

Driving into Manchester every day would be a complete pain in the arse, especially if the roads are busier as people are being told to avoid public transport.

I suspect that major businesses will be forced to close, or there may at least be some form of rationing to 'essential workers'. Not sure what essential workers will be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's all very well, but the epidemic is predicted to be active for 3-6 months, so you are proposing that it would be better for people offer 55 to be cooped-up for that period.

If those people are at high risk (and I was more thinking 70+) then this might actually be a good strategy for them to choose to take, yes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect that major businesses will be forced to close, or there may at least be some form of rationing to 'essential workers'. Not sure what essential workers will be.

A start would be "if you can make provision for home working, you must do so".

 

[nlogax]

My office is now closed for the rest of the week due to a potential risk of infection that we've been alerted to, hence working from home for a while to come. It's weird watching this thing sweep all the way around the globe. Feels a lot like science fiction leaping off the page and into our real lives.

 

[scarby]

...the reality is that much of what we consider normal life, certainly as far as recreation goes, will have to be put on hold. The researchers are hard at it but we're at least 12 months away from a viable vaccination programme. Until then...

It is one thing for people to accept not being able to attend recreational events.

But what about the people and businesses who depend on these for a living? They cannot put their business or working hours "on hold".

Small businesses, such as catering companies, etc., and people who rely on casual/temporary work at sports matches, leisure events, etc. don't have anything to fall back on, so what are they supposed to do for income if such things are "put on hold"? Not to mention the actual recreational facilities, which cannot survive on no customers - whether that's sports clubs, restaurants, hotels, etc. etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Small businesses, such as catering companies, etc., and people who rely on casual/temporary work at sports matches, leisure events, etc. don't have anything to fall back on, so what are they supposed to do for income if such things are "put on hold"? Not to mention the actual recreational facilities, which cannot survive on no customers - whether that's sports clubs, restaurants, hotels, etc. etc.

I do think the Government needs to come forward with help here, and that to be fair we should all pay for it between us with an increase in income tax as necessary, or by doing it through quantitative easing which will effectively "quietly" devalue all our assets in proportion to what we have.

 

[miami]

Taxing the wealthiest (typically the over 65s who own houses that have ballooned in value since they were bought for 50p in 1983) would

What's the point in increasing income tax when people are stopping work and thus not earning income? Our entire economy is service based.

The best bet is to isolate the minority of those most at risk.