Is it time for a change of government and change of strategy?

[backontrack]

50 quid says BJ and Rishi get pressured into extending it.

It feels inevitable at this point.

And then it'll be Groundhog Day about whether or not we should have gone through with it, because we can't ever commit to just doing one thing.

 

[AdamWW]

Why does it need flattening again? The only thing we need to worry about is hospital admissions and they're not exactly high at the moment and unlikely to be as most of the infected are now younger compared to the situation in March which was older and already frail people. As long as hospitals can cope we really should stop fussing about infections, especially as we're doing more testing. What do people expect to find if you test more?

I think it's possible that those advising the government appreciate that the more tests you do, the more positive results you'll get, and have allowed for that.

 

[3141]

They haven't faced up to the two fundamental choices:

1. Largely restrict people's freedoms to live as they want to. This needs to be done for an indeterminate period of time, until there is a vaccine or effective treatment. At that point, either the country will be bankrupt, or there will be very few theatres, museums, cafes, restaurants, heritage railways etc left to enjoy. Probably both. Mass unemployment, and the devil's own job to kick start some kind of economy. Probably more death through a huge contraction of the NHS and social care.
What if there is no vaccine or effective treatment found? What if the country goes broke before that point or soon after? What then?

2. Properly protect the vulnerable, accepting some will catch covid and some of them will die from it. Allow normal activity to resume. It'll be ugly for a few months but 99.5% of us come through the other side and still have something recognisable in terms of society, economy and leisure activities.

I agree with your first paragraph, and I'd like to agree with the second one, but I think the complexities of the situation would make it much more difficult than you suggest.

For example, "the vulnerable" is a very wide range of people and their conditions. I'm vulnerable because I'm 81, but I can easily isolate myself if necessary and have all the food I need delivered, and to get exercise I can go for a walk where I'll see almost no-one else. I don't need to go to work. There are other older people whose situation wold be very much harder than mine, who (to take just one example) need regular medical treatment which may be very difficult to arrange at the same time as keeping away from possible covid infection. There are people much younger than I am who have a medical condition which makes them vulnerable to covid, with a job which can't be done at home so it's a choice between protecting their health and earning enough money. We see every day reports in the media of people who get put in an inconvenient spot by the covid restrictions, which are presented in a way that suggests they are being hard done by and they really shouldn't have to put up with having their wedding postponed, or going into quarantine when they return from a holiday in Brazil. I think it would be impossible to "properly" protect all the vulnerable, and the media would go mad highlighting the "unfairness" of some of the decisions that would have been taken. Whatever the government does will be regarded as wrong.

But in the end - probably later than it should have been - the economic pressures will force the government to do something like your second paragraph. A majority of the population, who are under 50 and in good health and therefore not much at risk, will increasingly feel that their own livelihoods should take priority over looking after older people who've already had a few more decades of life. You can already see signs of that in the younger people who are at almost no risk of serious illness or death who take little notice of social distancing and other rules, and apparently don't care that if they get infected they may pass the virus on to others who are at much greater risk. By the time we get to that situation, it will all be a lot uglier, and we'll be fortunate if that only lasts for a few months.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This YouTube clip is over 30 minutes long. It is full of analysis and graphs and basically presenting the science. It may be uncomfortable for some but a change of government right now is not in the countries best interest in my opinion. Boris is not the right leader that is obvious but I am not convinced many others would have done a better job. Most people dont like straight talking.

 

[Richard Scott]

I think it's possible that those advising the government appreciate that the more tests you do, the more positive results you'll get, and have allowed for that.

That's obvious as I said in my post. If allowing for it then you'll expect a rise in cases detected so not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

[backontrack]

Isn't that what the "rule of 6" was all about?

Yes, but even then there's still more declouding to do.

Why does it need flattening again? The only thing we need to worry about is hospital admissions and they're not exactly high at the moment and unlikely to be as most of the infected are now younger compared to the situation in March which was older and already frail people. As long as hospitals can cope we really should stop fussing about infections, especially as we're doing more testing. What do people expect to find if you test more?

I didn't say it does need flattening, I said that the worry is that it will.

 

[Richard Scott]

Yes, but even then there's still more declouding to do.


I didn't say it does need flattening, I said that the worry is that it will.

Ok, apologies, perhaps I should read more carefully! Been a long week.

 

[py_megapixel]

Change of government? Well I wouldn't put Boris in charge of picking up a pint of milk from the co-op, let alone leading a country through a global crisis. I think if Labour had been in charge the restrictions might have been more restrictive, but wouldn't have been an awful confusing self-contradictory mess. In other words, they would have been less indecisive. Better, in my books. However I'd be worried about the impact of conducting a general election at this point.

Change of strategy? Absolutely. It's a mess at the moment.

 

[backontrack]

Ok, apologies, perhaps I should read more carefully! Been a long week.

no worries

Change of strategy? Absolutely. It's a mess at the moment.

How do you change your strategy when you don't have a strategy to begin with?

 

[py_megapixel]

How do you change your strategy when you don't have a strategy to begin with?

I'm unsure if you're asking a genuine question or not. If you're just making a point then I agree.

Perhaps it should be amended to "implementation of a strategy"?

 

[backontrack]

I'm unsure if you're asking a genuine question or not. If you're just making a point then I agree.

Perhaps it should be amended to "implementation of a strategy"?

The latter.

I wish we had a discernable, coherent strategy...

 

[C J Snarzell]

As Kier Starmer is a qualified barrister and former head of the CPS, I do actually think he would implement some strong plans to support the police and emergency services to deal with the idiots flouting the Covid measures. He does seem to be steering Labour forward after Corbyn's rein of power and in comparison to Boris he does seem to have a more realistic view of what needs to be done and where we need to go if the UK is ever going to come out of this Covid fiasco which looks to be dragging on well into 2021.

CJ

 

[Huntergreed]

As Kier Starmer is a qualified barrister and former head of the CPS, I do actually think he would implement some strong plans to support the police and emergency services to deal with the idiots flouting the Covid measures. He does seem to be steering Labour forward after Corbyn's rein of power and in comparison to Boris he does seem to have a more realistic view of what needs to be done and where we need to go if the UK is ever going to come out of this Covid fiasco which looks to be dragging on well into 2021.

CJ

The issue is we cannot slow the spread of this virus forever, and the government are either incredibly deluded or actively hiding this from the public to keep them on their side.

We’re going to have to open the country up sometime, and when we do so I’m afraid to say the virus is going to spread, people are going to be hospitalised, people will (very sadly) die from this virus, but the alternative is to simply wait and keep numbers low (destroying the economy and society whilst we’re at it), to basically delay the inevitable

 

[C J Snarzell]

The issue is we cannot slow the spread of this virus forever, and the government are either incredibly deluded or actively hiding this from the public to keep them on their side.

We’re going to have to open the country up sometime, and when we do so I’m afraid to say the virus is going to spread, people are going to be hospitalised, people will (very sadly) die from this virus, but the alternative is to simply wait and keep numbers low (destroying the economy and society whilst we’re at it), to basically delay the inevitable

The government are simply daming a river - the gates need to open now before we are plunged into the worst economic crisis on record.

CJ

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The government are simply daming a river - the gates need to open now before we are plunged into the worst economic crisis on record.

CJ

Indeed - could be WW2 level -and take as long to recover.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Indeed - could be WW2 level -and take as long to recover.

My parents were born in 1949 & 1955, and they have stated the knock on effects of WW2 were still being felt when they were children.

The way we are going, the UK will still be recovering from this crisis well into the 2030s unless BJ acts now.

CJ

 

[trebor79]

I think flattening the curve was a sound strategy. Problem is we went way beyond that, and collapsed it completely. Sweden's curve is what I'd call flattened, it's taken a lot longer to come down, but it's a sustainable fall because they didn't effectively shut down their society and economy.
I think our government is not far away from another panic reaction that will again collapse the curve. This will simply repeat all the errors from the first wave.

 

[AdamWW]

We’re going to have to open the country up sometime, and when we do so I’m afraid to say the virus is going to spread, people are going to be hospitalised, people will (very sadly) die from this virus, but the alternative is to simply wait and keep numbers low (destroying the economy and society whilst we’re at it), to basically delay the inevitable

You're confident then that there is zero chance of a vaccine or a highly effective treatment, then?

 

[Huntergreed]

You're confident then that there is zero chance of a vaccine or a highly effective treatment, then?

Not at all, but we can’t base a strategy around one. Of course, if one comes, then that’s great and it’ll reduce the damage this virus causes massively, but this virus isn’t as bad as the government (or anyone, including myself) first thought it was. Time to realise that, accept it, and move in in my opinion (taking reasonable precautions to protect the vulnerable for the mean time)

 

[AdamWW]

Not at all, but we can’t base a strategy around one. Of course, if one comes, then that’s great and it’ll reduce the damage this virus causes massively, but this virus isn’t as bad as the government (or anyone, including myself) first thought it was. Time to realise that, accept it, and move in in my opinion (taking reasonable precautions to protect the vulnerable for the mean time)

I think we use the word "inevitable" in different ways, then.

 

[Yew]

Not at all, but we can’t base a strategy around one. Of course, if one comes, then that’s great and it’ll reduce the damage this virus causes massively, but this virus isn’t as bad as the government (or anyone, including myself) first thought it was. Time to realise that, accept it, and move in in my opinion (taking reasonable precautions to protect the vulnerable for the mean time)

These days we hear a lot about "reasonable worst case scenarios", but when it comes to vaccines, we only hear about wildly optimistic cases. A reasonable worst case for vaccine development could be 5-10 years. Even within the next 12 (never mind 3) months would be remarkable, beating the next fastest vaccine developed by a good 50%. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, and that the current continued suppression-but-not-quite strategy is due to getting insider tips from Oxford.

 

[AdamWW]

These days we hear a lot about "reasonable worst case scenarios", but when it comes to vaccines, we only hear about wildly optimistic cases. A reasonable worst case for vaccine development could be 5-10 years. Even within the next 12 (never mind 3) months would be remarkable, beating the next fastest vaccine developed by a good 50%. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, and that the current continued suppression-but-not-quite strategy is due to getting insider tips from Oxford.

I don't think there can ever have been a time when so much money has been thrown at vaccine development in such a short time - the number of vaccines currently in parallel development is huge.

Also I believe the longest delay in vaccine develpoment is normally waiting for enough people to catch a disease in order to know how well the vaccine works.

(Plus the Oxford vaccine already existed as a 'potential' vaccine, ready to be modified to provide immunity to a new disease).

So I think there are various factors at work to give some optimism.

 

[Domh245]

I don't think there can ever have been a time when so much money has been thrown at vaccine development in such a short time - the number of vaccines currently in parallel development is huge.

Throwing money at this problem won't speed it up though, it's a process dictated by waiting and observing than a lack of resource.

Also I believe the longest delay in vaccine develpoment is normally waiting for enough people to catch a disease in order to know how well the vaccine works.

Amongst many. Another one (which we've seen in action the last couple of days in fact) is the need to assess for side effects. AstraZeneca's one has been stopped in trials as a result of somebody being hospitalised after having it. Odds are that the hospitalisation was completely unrelated, but as part of the process to ensure that it is safe, they have to be sure it wasn't their vaccine. No amount of money will speed up the development of side effects

 

[AdamWW]

Throwing money at this problem won't speed it up though, it's a process dictated by waiting and observing than a lack of resource.

Spending money to run many different vaccine development projects in parallel isn't likely to result in a vaccine sooner than if we just spent the money pursuing one?

Amongst many. Another one (which we've seen in action the last couple of days in fact) is the need to assess for side effects. AstraZeneca's one has been stopped in trials as a result of somebody being hospitalised after having it. Odds are that the hospitalisation was completely unrelated, but as part of the process to ensure that it is safe, they have to be sure it wasn't their vaccine. No amount of money will speed up the development of side effects

And I'm not sure how you can have one longest delay among many...

 

[Jonny]

I deeply regret to say that the entire left slate of the Labour party (Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Long-Bailey, Burgon, etc.) have decided to get behind the Zero-Covid madness.

https://twitter.com/socialistcam/status/1303755885244809216


It is less than a year since I supported these people and voted for them in the General Election Everyone has gone mad, it seems.

Zero-Covid is only achievable in the long run with vaccinations, as New Zealand has found out (at least one will be a phase 3 trials pass, that I do not doubt); even Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand has said that vaccination is part of her plan. That means you have to get potentially 95%+ of the population (for a vaccine that works on most people) on board to make it work. The usual maximum is 90% of people on board if active participation is required.

 

[Domh245]

Spending money to run many different vaccine development projects in parallel isn't likely to result in a vaccine sooner than if we just spent the money pursuing one?

It means that we're more likely to have at least one that will succeed if/as trial vaccines run into issues. Running them in parallel means that it'll occur sooner than if we only funded one at a time, but it doesn't actually speed up the development process of any single vaccine greatly, other than having more resource to do the analysis with, once you've got results.

And I'm not sure how you can have one longest delay among many...

One of the longest delays amongst many...

 

[Jonny]

Throwing money at this problem won't speed it up though, it's a process dictated by waiting and observing than a lack of resource.
process to ensure that it is safe, they have to be sure it wasn't their vaccine. No amount of money will speed up the development of side effects

Spending money to run many different vaccine development projects in parallel isn't likely to result in a vaccine sooner than if we just spent the money pursuing one?



And I'm not sure how you can have one longest delay among many...

There is a resource level at which vaccine development can run at full speed, and most if not all major trials are already at that resource level.

 

[Yew]

There is a resource level at which vaccine development can run at full speed, and most if not all major trials are already at that resource level.

Indeed, for those interested in project management, I'd recommend the mythical man-month

 

[Cowley]

It’s going to be quite tricky to pick apart the posts on here relating to vaccines and separate them from this discussion, so rather than doing that time consuming thing, can everyone use this thread (or another suitable one) for those discussions:

Oxford Vaccine phase three trial suggests it's highly effective with up to 90% protection

The BBC have been reporting that the results of the phase one trials of the Oxford vaccine are due to be published today.

www.railforums.co.uk

And we’ll then be able to keep this thread on its original (and quite interesting) subject hopefully.
Thanks everyone.

 

[DerekC]

Going back to the original subject, there is one thing that (surprisingly) doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet and that's a coalition. It's what happened in WWI and WWII and although I don't like comparing the Covid crisis with a major war, the idea is worth discussing. If you assume Boris eventually gets the Tory party black spot, then would we really be expected to sit around for months while they all solemnly vote for Jacob Rees-Mogg or somebody equally clueless? The only problem is, who would be the person to lead such a thing? I have an odd suggestion - Teresa May. She may have failed over Brexit but she didn't half try! And she does have grudging respect in many quarters, I think.