Coronavirus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McD

yep :agree:

one of our neighbours has pals round daily for a blether and/or lunch in the garden, nothing like 2 metres between.

another house, the husband and wife go out separately and together several times a day each (they’re not key workers), and for the last few days have had their older adult daughter round with her kids, with a full on garden party each day.

another has their daughter and 3 grandkids round every day, and has done throughout the lockdown.

then there’s the regular picnics on the local park, the groups of 5-8 pals wandering around because it’s sunny outside.

and these people will be the first to shout loudly about how unfair it would be if the police were to start clamping down harder.

meanwhile, my daughter hasn’t seen any of her grandparents for weeks, neither have I or my wife, or any of the rest of our families. My wife and daughter have barely left the house for about 5 weeks, and then only to have a walk to get some exercise and fresh air.

---

A wee bit of friendly advice, control what you can control and stop looking for even the most innocuous things that appear to be raising your anxiety levels.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

A wee bit of friendly advice, control what you can control and stop looking for even the most innocuous things that appear to be raising your anxiety levels.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Very true. Annoying but true.

Last week on one of the slides they stick up at the daily UK press conferences they said that between 85% and 90% of the public had adhered to all the rules on social distancing, exercising and staying at home.

They were happy with that. Probably sounds about right tbh. But the 10% who didn’t represent circa 7 million people.

What can you do? Nothing really. Just look after your own position and hope that everyone else does so too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

Right in defence of both Sturgeon and Johnson I googled who must be in attendance at Cobra meetings

Unlike a Cabinet meeting - where frontbenchers meet the prime minister - there is no rigid register for who should attend a Cobra meeting and not even Boris Johnson has to attend.

The composition of any Cobra meeting depends on the issue that is to be discussed.

According to the Institute for Government, it's usually made up of officials and agency personnel, alongside ministers, from relevant departments and agencies.

For example, as the government discusses its response to the coronavirus outbreak, England's Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty attends.

On the other hand, following a terror attack Mr Whitty would not attend, but perhaps the UK's top police officer, Met Commissioner Cressida Dick, would.

The meetings are usually chaired by the most senior and most relevant minister in the room.

So it's likely that Prime Minister Johnson or Health Secretary Matt Hancock are chairing coronavirus Cobra meetings.

I assume there was no immediate requirement for the FM to travel and attend a meeting in London especially as she could send a London based representative or use modern technology to join the meeting. Keeping Johnson away from Corbra meetings was probably the most sensible thing to do :agree: :wink:

---

I also think that the abbreviation for the room that the meetings are held in also leads to confusion (Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms). It clearly suits at times to convey urgency and importance but in this case is adding to confusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Prof from Oxford University on Marr has just said he estimates that between 3-10% of the country have been infected.

If we take the middle figure of 6% that's just over 4 million people. If around 50,000 people have died of the virus then the current fatality rate would be just over 1%.

The 50,000 includes elderly in care homes so you would imagine that the actual fatality rate for someone under the age of 60 is going to be significantly less.

I'm not a Scottish Nat but NS came across very well on the Andrew Marr show

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby Bairn

Very true. Annoying but true.

Last week on one of the slides they stick up at the daily UK press conferences they said that between 85% and 90% of the public had adhered to all the rules on social distancing, exercising and staying at home.

They were happy with that. Probably sounds about right tbh. But the 10% who didn’t represent circa 7 million people.

What can you do? Nothing really. Just look after your own position and hope that everyone else does so too.

---

It's hard to argue with that principle, but I think we all still have a responsibility to call out behaviour which should be called out. I read on here recently a poster being complimentary about folk observing social distancing whilst picnicking in parks - completely missing the point that they shouldn't be doing it and/or why they shouldn't be doing it.

For all the talk of this crisis having brought the best out in some people (which I agree with), there are others I'm going to have a hard time being civil to after it's over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

The reports elsewhere are saying Scottish Government ministers were there along with the Scottish CMO. On the face of it, it seems like exactly the same situation that Blackford was criticising Johnson for. If correct, it’s another example of hypocrisy by politicians of all colours during this crisis.

If the Sunday Mail isn’t good enough for you, there’s a link to the Herald below. For some strange reason The National haven’t got around to it yet.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...read-scotland/

---

The First Minister has been chairing the meetings of the Scottish government resilience committee, our equivalent of COBRa since January 29th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Since90+2

Prof from Oxford University on Marr has just said he estimates that between 3-10% of the country have been infected.

If we take the middle figure of 6% that's just over 4 million people. If around 50,000 people have died of the virus then the current fatality rate would be just over 1%.

The 50,000 includes elderly in care homes so you would imagine that the actual fatality rate for someone under the age of 60 is going to be significantly less.

---

I didn’t see the interview but did he say what his estimate was based on?

I’ve read and watched other epidemiologists and scientists in the past week and there is a wide array of views. Geeks and boffins moment in the sun.

Catherine Calderwood suggested that the infection rate might be 1,000 for each death. That would mean a mortality rate of 0.1%. With likely 40,000 deaths in the UK that would mean 40m infections.

But who knows. No real data. Most are just making it up and best guessing as they go along. “Modelling” which I guess is what they do. But sometimes modelling can be on basis of “***** in ***** out”.

There is a report out tomorrow from Sweden about antibody testing results which have apparently proven to be 100% accurate when going through prelim test phase. So we’ll see what that says. Speculation it will show 30%+ have “had it” in Sweden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

If it is happening it will come out. Both the medics and civil servants are bound by codes of ethics. There will be no shortage of people willing to get Cummings’ head on a pike, metaphorically, should there be substantive evidence that he went beyond the line. I don’t know if he did, none of us do at this point. I suspect it would have come out by now. And again, I don’t get the surprise about him or another government adviser attending SAGE that some on here have expressed.

---

We shouldn’t have to guess. It should be in the public domain who is advising the govt. That’s how we get accountability.
The govt say they are following the science and that has now been called into question. They now need to produce the minutes of those meetings. If they don’t then they should not be surprised when public opinion turns against them.
There are people complaining on this thread about people not observing the lockdown but the govt can’t explain where their advice is coming from. It’s no wonder people are easing the lockdown for themselves. It’s a matter of trust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting background on the Times story from last week and this weeks follow up.
The paper appears to be moving to a more liberal position. Last weeks story got them over £400k worth of new annual subscriptions alone.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/joe...mpression=true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby Bairn

I didn’t see the interview but did he say what his estimate was based on?

I’ve read and watched other epidemiologists and scientists in the past week and there is a wide array of views. Geeks and boffins moment in the sun.

Catherine Calderwood suggested that the infection rate might be 1,000 for each death. That would mean a mortality rate of 0.1%. With likely 40,000 deaths in the UK that would mean 40m infections.

But who knows. No real data. Most are just making it up and best guessing as they go along. “Modelling” which I guess is what they do. But sometimes modelling can be on basis of “***** in ***** out”.

There is a report out tomorrow from Sweden about antibody testing results which have apparently proven to be 100% accurate when going through prelim test phase. So we’ll see what that says. Speculation it will show 30%+ have “had it” in Sweden.

---

Andrew Marr quoted Sweden's chief epidemiologist as saying Stockholm was very close to "herd immunity" and he expected the rest of Sweden to follow thereafter. Given the reluctance of scientists to confirm immunity definitely exists in any form, it seems a bold claim. Sweden will be interesting to watch in the coming weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

We shouldn’t have to guess. It should be in the public domain who is advising the govt. That’s how we get accountability.
The govt say they are following the science and that has now been called into question. They now need to produce the minutes of those meetings. If they don’t then they should not be surprised when public opinion turns against them.
There are people complaining on this thread about people not observing the lockdown but the govt can’t explain where their advice is coming from. It’s no wonder people are easing the lockdown for themselves. It’s a matter of trust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Do you think publicly published meetings are going to encourage open and frank discussions with many alternative viewpoints being raised, aired, argued and discussed?

It’s absolutely correct that the data and models being used to inform these meetings should be released though.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pZeqHL...ature=youtu.be

It’s up to individuals what and who they want to believe but I did find this interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pZeqHL...ature=youtu.be

It’s up to individuals what and who they want to be life but I did find this interesting.

---

Is he the same guy who, falsely, publicly claimed to have invented email?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Is he the same guy who, falsely, publicly claimed to have invented email?

---

There was a strangely titled book about email sitting behind him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

There was a strangely titled book about email sitting behind him

---

The name rang a bell, it was a very weird case, and a quick Google suggests it is the same guy. I didn't realise he was a doctor (well I knew he was a doctor but not a medical doctor if that makes sense).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

Right in defence of both Sturgeon and Johnson I googled who must be in attendance at Cobra meetings

Unlike a Cabinet meeting - where frontbenchers meet the prime minister - there is no rigid register for who should attend a Cobra meeting and not even Boris Johnson has to attend.

The composition of any Cobra meeting depends on the issue that is to be discussed.

According to the Institute for Government, it's usually made up of officials and agency personnel, alongside ministers, from relevant departments and agencies.

For example, as the government discusses its response to the coronavirus outbreak, England's Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty attends.

On the other hand, following a terror attack Mr Whitty would not attend, but perhaps the UK's top police officer, Met Commissioner Cressida Dick, would.

The meetings are usually chaired by the most senior and most relevant minister in the room.

So it's likely that Prime Minister Johnson or Health Secretary Matt Hancock are chairing coronavirus Cobra meetings.

I assume there was no immediate requirement for the FM to travel and attend a meeting in London especially as she could send a London based representative or use modern technology to join the meeting. Keeping Johnson away from Corbra meetings was probably the most sensible thing to do :agree: :wink:

---

It's the language used by the media that's misleading too. Saying that Sturgeon and Johnson 'skipped' the meetings implies that they were supposed to be there but just thought nah, I'll give it a miss. If you actually read the stories it's not as if they were no-shows - there's no inidcation they were ever expected to be there in the first place.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cp...6-09_07_03.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

We shouldn’t have to guess. It should be in the public domain who is advising the govt. That’s how we get accountability.
The govt say they are following the science and that has now been called into question. They now need to produce the minutes of those meetings. If they don’t then they should not be surprised when public opinion turns against them.
There are people complaining on this thread about people not observing the lockdown but the govt can’t explain where their advice is coming from. It’s no wonder people are easing the lockdown for themselves. It’s a matter of trust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Not sure what the timescale for producing the minutes is, but those up until late last year are readily available on the government website, including full breakdown of attendees. The 'secrecy' accusations seem like media hype:

https://www.gov.uk/government/groups...-sage#meetings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiber-nation

Can't cope with shopping in Morrisons. Utter chaos. Some old biddy barging in front of everyone the other day, folk blocking aisles. The one way in Tesco is annoying but I think it works better.

---

Was thinking about this. I think a major issue that I faced is if buying for somebody else I spend a lot more time looking for stuff as I don't know where it is and often not were I expect it to be. Maybe same for others, so I am in there a lot longer, I guess if I can go in any direction makes it quicker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Interesting background on the Times story from last week and this weeks follow up.
The paper appears to be moving to a more liberal position. Last weeks story got them over £400k worth of new annual subscriptions alone.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/joe...mpression=true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Interesting article that. There is certainly space for another liberal newspaper so worth keeping an eye on. I still think Murdoch may be trying to get Johnson out and move Gove (?) in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby Bairn

I didn’t see the interview but did he say what his estimate was based on?

I’ve read and watched other epidemiologists and scientists in the past week and there is a wide array of views. Geeks and boffins moment in the sun.

Catherine Calderwood suggested that the infection rate might be 1,000 for each death. That would mean a mortality rate of 0.1%. With likely 40,000 deaths in the UK that would mean 40m infections.

But who knows. No real data. Most are just making it up and best guessing as they go along. “Modelling” which I guess is what they do. But sometimes modelling can be on basis of “***** in ***** out”.

There is a report out tomorrow from Sweden about antibody testing results which have apparently proven to be 100% accurate when going through prelim test phase. So we’ll see what that says. Speculation it will show 30%+ have “had it” in Sweden.

---

The mortality rate has to be higher than 0.1% or else practically the entire population of NYC has been infected which can’t be true.

btw, I think the 30% guesstimate is specifically for Stockholm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

In all fairness, a bit like MA, I don't really have a problem with him being there, as long as he's listening, occasionally asking questions and not dictating proceedings. It can only be beneficial for the government to have a direct presence in there.

I don't have much hatred in me but what hatred I do have is generally reserved for Cummings and the like, so this isn't coming from someone who is in any way an apologist for him or what he stands for.

---

I can’t believe the amount of benefit of the doubt Cummings is getting. I can’t be the only person on here who’s sat in meetings with very, very smart people that end being dominated or at least stale mated by opinionated control freaks who couldn’t lace their intellectual boots?

Other sage attenders are whistle blowing ...


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...minic-cummings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

I can’t believe the amount of benefit of the doubt Cummings is getting. I can’t be the only person on here who’s sat in meetings with very, very smart people that end being dominated or at least stale mated by opinionated control freaks who couldn’t lace their intellectual boots?

---

It's the control-freakery coupled with the pedantry. Guaranteed clusterf€ck.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

The mortality rate has to be higher than 0.1% or else practically the entire population of NYC has been infected which can’t be true.

btw, I think the 30% guesstimate is specifically for Stockholm.

---

I agree. The point being though that we simply don't know because we don't have the data. Making decisions on the hoof almost.

BTW if you take the numbers of deaths v population of New York State then at 0.1% you would have 60% having been infected. Very unlikely. But who knows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

If it is happening it will come out. Both the medics and civil servants are bound by codes of ethics. There will be no shortage of people willing to get Cummings’ head on a pike, metaphorically, should there be substantive evidence that he went beyond the line. I don’t know if he did, none of us do at this point. I suspect it would have come out by now. And again, I don’t get the surprise about him or another government adviser attending SAGE that some on here have expressed.

---

Because it has never happened before for the reason the group are no longer seen as independent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby Bairn

I agree. The point being though that we simply don't know because we don't have the data. Making decisions on the hoof almost.

BTW if you take the numbers of deaths v population of New York State then at 0.1% you would have 60% having been infected. Very unlikely. But who knows?

---

Yeah, the lack of data is frustrating for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

I can’t believe the amount of benefit of the doubt Cummings is getting. I can’t be the only person on here who’s sat in meetings with very, very smart people that end being dominated or at least stale mated by opinionated control freaks who couldn’t lace their intellectual boots?

---

I suspect in a lot of cases its the sort of control freaks you describe that are also minded to give Cummings the benefit of the doubt (read, a free pass). I seriously doubt these people's commitment to genuine democracy; they just want the machinery of government to control all aspects of life. At the best, machiavellians, at the worst, wannabe fascists. I think most of actually want scientifically gifted people to make decisions independently. But apparently we are being expected to believe Cummings was just there to serve coffee and biscuits.

“Tom Gordon from The Herald points out that when it emerged a week ago that Boris Johnson had missed five meetings of the emergency Cobra committee in January and February, SNP MP Ian Blackford accused the UK government of "jaw dropping negligence and complacency". He wonders if the same applies to Nicola Sturgeon as the first minister "missed those same meetings".

Scottish Health Secretary Jeane Freeman points out that, as the Covid-19 crisis was being looked at "from a health perspective" in the early stages, she had personally attended all Cobra meetings, chaired by Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock, from the very beginning, apart from one.

The first minister had taken part from 2 March as "wider decisions" were being taken that affected society as a whole.

However, Ms Freeman stresses that the Scottish government had set up its own "resilience operation" as far back as late January to plan for the pandemic, and this had been chaired by the first minister”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

I can’t believe the amount of benefit of the doubt Cummings is getting. I can’t be the only person on here who’s sat in meetings with very, very smart people that end being dominated or at least stale mated by opinionated control freaks who couldn’t lace their intellectual boots?

---

For me it's simple: The government are insistent their current CV19 policy is 'following the science'. It would appear our intepretation of 'the science' is somewhat different from those countries which have tackled this more successfully than us and also significantly different from the WHO issued advice.

As such the public, who's lives are being impacted and in some cases lost due to said science, should be fully aware of who is advising and who is potentially influencing that advice for ideological reasons.