WHEN'S IT ALL GONNA OPEN??

[DandV]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

NZ, or do you propose to speak for every country. We're not looking for excuses. It;s just not cricket, to kick someone when they're down. It's a mite sadistic.  

 

 

 

Really my message is to your government, a government that really does frustrate me, in making problem avoidance into an art form.

For you people, I have a huge amount of sympathy for the most unenviable position you are in, so I take your point about not kicking.

Talking about cricket, though, when we we have a close game, you are not to ready to bring up population disparity ?

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, DandV said:

Really my message is to your government, a government that really does frustrate me, in making problem avoidance into an art form.

For you people, I have a huge amount of sympathy for the most unenviable position you are in, so I take your point about not kicking.

Talking about cricket, though, when we we have a close game, you are not to ready to bring up population disparity ?

It's still the same answer what happens when the virus strikes again? And it will as no vaccine currently exists 

[DandV]

9 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Until the first tourist turns up with the virus and it all starts again for both countries! Without a vaccine you are still in the crap as no herd immunity exists

That is the point of the closed borders. Both Australia and New Zealand only let their own nationals in, and then confine them in Government seconded hotels for 14 days minimum with regular health checks. Stuffed our tourist industry, but let's face it  world wide tourism is currently stuffed anyway.

[restlessnomad]

8 minutes ago, DandV said:

Really my message is to your government, a government that really does frustrate me, in making problem avoidance into an art form.

For you people, I have a huge amount of sympathy for the most unenviable position you are in, so I take your point about not kicking.

Talking about cricket, though, when we we have a close game, you are not to ready to bring up population disparity ?

Its difficult to say if NZ has better stats because govt intervention or because its an area where all countries have faced low death/infection rate. May be because china is close by or because of earlier outbreak of sars, the pandemic was taken much more seriously.

However UK is in Europe, a population of 500+ million with free movement. It makes a part of high death rate european cluster of countries. UK did make a mistake of going for herd immunity but please note that whatever is the difference, it is due to specific path taken(act of active decision making), not because .. 'yeah will see when it happens'...

 

there is a nordic country that has taken decision to open up, again, a very active step based on their calculation. If they end up with worse place, I would not say its because 'they dont care', its because they took a wrong decision. (with benefit of hindsight)

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by restlessnomad

[Higgs]

9 minutes ago, DandV said:

Really my message is to your government, a government that really does frustrate me, in making problem avoidance into an art form.

For you people, I have a huge amount of sympathy for the most unenviable position you are in, so I take your point about not kicking.

Talking about cricket, though, when we we have a close game, you are not to ready to bring up population disparity ?

 

You can't help yourself - this government doesn't listen to you. Follow the medical and scientific advice of experts, has been the mantra here. Then, the journalists ask - do you think the government is hiding behind the experts. Some people are only interested in mud. 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Higgs

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, DandV said:

That is the point of the closed borders. Both Australia and New Zealand only let their own nationals in, and then confine them in Government seconded hotels for 14 days minimum with regular health checks. Stuffed our tourist industry, but let's face it  world wide tourism is currently stuffed anyway.

Lets hope world wide tourism remains stuffed. The obscene amounts of polluting air travel the planet has endured whilst one or two people buy an electric car to be " Green " lol.

Yes airlines will go bust which is crap for staff but long term its much better for all concerned.

3 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

Its difficult to say if NZ has better stats because govt intervention or because its an area where all countries have faced low death/infection rate. May be because china is close by or because of earlier outbreak of sars, the pandemic was taken much more seriously.

However UK is in Europe, a population of 500+ million with free movement. It makes a part of high death rate european cluster of countries. UK did make a mistake of going for herd immunity but please note that whatever is the difference, it is due to specific path taken(act of active decision making), not because .. 'yeah will see when it happens'...

 

there is a nordic country that has taken decision to open up, again, a very active step based on their calculation. If they end up with worse place, I would not say its because 'they dont care', its because they took a wrong decision. (with benefit of hindsight)

 

No one knows yet anyway wether NZ or Japan or whoever has got it right or wrong. There is a long way to go before a vaccine or eradication so lets wait and see. It will be ten years before all the data has been number crunched and with a large injection of hindsight the figures for all countries will be revealed.

[DandV]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

You can't help yourself - this government doesn't listen to you. Follow the medical advice of experts, has been the mantra here. Then, the journalists ask - do you think the government is hiding behind the experts. Some people are only interested in mud. 

 

 

I think one advantage of our small size was with a small pool of local expertise, that when this situation was evolving we cast our expert consultation a lot wider, to Australia and to countries that were further advanced in the progress of the disease, in Europe and Asia, alerting us of both pitfalls, Italy, and successes,  Singapore and Taiwan. What fascinated  me was that Australia followed the same route and we ended up with the same responses only hours apart. 

The path we have taken is really no longer available to Britain but now some months into the crisis  Britain and the US seem yet to settle on a way forward. 

[Sir Nibble]

19 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

Its difficult to say if NZ has better stats because govt intervention or because its an area where all countries have faced low death/infection rate. May be because china is close by or because of earlier outbreak of sars, the pandemic was taken much more seriously.

However UK is in Europe, a population of 500+ million with free movement. It makes a part of high death rate european cluster of countries. UK did make a mistake of going for herd immunity but please note that whatever is the difference, it is due to specific path taken(act of active decision making), not because .. 'yeah will see when it happens'...

 

there is a nordic country that has taken decision to open up, again, a very active step based on their calculation. If they end up with worse place, I would not say its because 'they dont care', its because they took a wrong decision. (with benefit of hindsight)

 

Here we go again. Herd immunity is not a mistake. It's either that or live with the virus permanently. Those are the two options, there is not and cannot be a third.

This is why herd immunity is the goal of every country.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Sir Nibble

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, DandV said:

I think one advantage of our small size was with a small pool of local expertise, that when this situation was evolving we cast our expert consultation a lot wider, to Australia and to countries that were further advanced in the progress of the disease, in Europe and Asia, alerting us of both pitfalls, Italy, and successes,  Singapore and Taiwan. What fascinated  me was that Australia followed the same route and we ended up with the same responses only hours apart. 

The path we have taken is really no longer available to Britain but now some months into the crisis  Britain and the US seem yet to settle on a way forward. 

 

Well, if we're not listening to anyone, I guess that makes your input somewhat redundant. 

 

 

[restlessnomad]

21 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Here we go again. Herd immunity is not a mistake. It's either that or live with the virus permanently. Those are the two options, there is not and cannot be a third.

This is why herd immunity is the goal of every country.

herd immunity 'strategy' I was referring to has been accepted as mistake by both UK and scottish govt.

[Sir Nibble]

1 minute ago, restlessnomad said:

herd immunity 'strategy' I was referring to has been accepted as mistake by both UK and scottish govt.

Can you define "Herd immunity strategy" for me? currently we are following a policy of seeking to limit infection to within the capability of the NHS to cope. If nothing else is done, a natural herd immunity will develop eventually, albeit with a high death rate. Hopefully, an effective vaccine will become available and herd immunity will be constructed far more quickly with a much lower death rate. Are not both of these herd immunity strategies?

[DandV]

11 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Here we go again. Herd immunity is not a mistake. It's either that or live with the virus permanently. Those are the two options, there is not and cannot be a third.

This is why herd immunity is the goal of every country.

I think Sweden is the only country that has articulated that herd immunity is effectively  it's goal. And it is a valid approach. Australia and New Zealand have specifically rejected the herd immunity path, as between both countries we have only about 7000 people with any sort of immunity. This locks us, and some of our Pacific Island ndighbours into waiting in isolation, perhaps combined isolation,  for the magic, yet to be produced vaccine. 

There is currently a lot of discussion here about the second wave, but now both countries have established both substantial testing regimes and tracing capabilities, the appearance of a few occasional cases is less then we have already suppressed,  with much more rudementory capabilities.

I think most countries are banking on the arrival of a vaccine, sometime, as their escape path, not herd immunity. 

 

[WotEver]

11 minutes ago, DandV said:

I think most countries are banking on the arrival of a vaccine, sometime, as their escape path, not herd immunity. 

Huh?  Your sentence contradicts itself. A vaccine is exactly what will GIVE herd immunity.  Without a vaccine there is no quick route to herd immunity without widespread and unnecessary death

13 minutes ago, DandV said:

I think Sweden is the only country that has articulated that herd immunity is effectively  it's goal. And it is a valid approach.

It's not simply a valid approach, it's the ONLY approach unless we want to live in lockdown with the disease rife for many years into the future.

[Momac]

12 hours ago, Ianws said:

 People of all ages are struggling with lots of different issues, both immediate and affecting their futures. 

That's true - everyone is feeling the pain , emotionally. Even if not now there will almost certainly need to be  financial penalties  for all.

 

I am not sure the NHS costs will have been increased in terms of salary costs . Rather than people working longer hours it has been more a matter of redeployment of existing resources . The 12 hour shifts mentioned by the media are normal.

But there are the nightingale hospitals to pay for.

 

 

I think people will quickly want to return to their old ways once they are permitted to do so. Whether they are able to afford to do so is another matter . If for example a 2m rule is applied to flights the cost of those flights will increase significantly. 

 

As far as this forum is concerned we may be lucky as the majority are boat owners who will be happy to take stay at home holidays on their own boat.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

Huh?  Your sentence contradicts itself. A vaccine is exactly what will GIVE herd immunity.  Without a vaccine there is no quick route to herd immunity without widespread and unnecessary death

There will not be  a vaccine for months , if at all, and even then the time taken to give it  to the entire population of the planet will be years.

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Can you define "Herd immunity strategy" for me? currently we are following a policy of seeking to limit infection to within the capability of the NHS to cope. If nothing else is done, a natural herd immunity will develop eventually, albeit with a high death rate. Hopefully, an effective vaccine will become available and herd immunity will be constructed far more quickly with a much lower death rate. Are not both of these herd immunity strategies?

I think it comes from the early days of the No10 announcements, where it was suggested that its not a big problem and 'we'll just biff it on the nose'. In my view it was not taken seriously by many (including several on this forum) and was just a 'bit of Flu',  and anyway 'we always have 450 people a day die from Cancer'.

 

It took some time before its severity was accepted and action eventually taken and "advised" lockdown began on 23rd March almost 2 months after the first UK case (29th Jan) We already had examples of how virulent it was from other countries and should have  reacted earlier.

 

 

UK

 

 

Italy (for example)

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[WotEver]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

There will not be  a vaccine for months , if at all, and even then the time taken to give it  to the entire population of the planet will be years.

That is an opinion.  As such it is valid.  It doesn't mean it's correct.

[restlessnomad]

38 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Can you define "Herd immunity strategy" for me? currently we are following a policy of seeking to limit infection to within the capability of the NHS to cope. If nothing else is done, a natural herd immunity will develop eventually, albeit with a high death rate. Hopefully, an effective vaccine will become available and herd immunity will be constructed far more quickly with a much lower death rate. Are not both of these herd immunity strategies?

the bold bit was the initial strategy...

here is an old news piece

https://fortune.com/2020/04/06/uk-boris-johnson-coronavirus-icu-herd-immunity/

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by restlessnomad

[churchward]

8 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Huh?  Your sentence contradicts itself. A vaccine is exactly what will GIVE herd immunity.  Without a vaccine there is no quick route to herd immunity without widespread and unnecessary death

It's not simply a valid approach, it's the ONLY approach unless we want to live in lockdown with the disease rife for many years into the future.

It rather depends on how a vaccine or the anti-bodies it generates in the system lasts in the body.  If it is like the flu people may have to be vaccinated once a year especially if the virus continues to mutate.

1 minute ago, restlessnomad said:

the bold bit was the initial strategy...

No it was not.  The government coronavirus does not mention herd immunity.  It was mentioned and discussed by the medical experts as an eventual potential outcome the distorted by the media and others.

[bizzard]

Lots of air freighters about. Two Turkish Airlines cargo planes from Istanbul just arrived at Stansted. Also been several big freighters in and out of here. RAF Boeing Globemasters and C130 Herculese' all zoomably bringing in PPE or taking it away!!!

[DandV]

5 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Huh?  Your sentence contradicts itself. A vaccine is exactly what will GIVE herd immunity.  Without a vaccine there is no quick route to herd immunity without widespread and unnecessary death

It's not simply a valid approach, it's the ONLY approach unless we want to live in lockdown with the disease rife for many years into the future.

I was really writing about naturally acquired herd immunity after the disease has run its course which is the Swedish approach rather then herd immunity acquired by vaccination. If you have conciously decided to await herd immunity by vaccination, then surely it is best to develop a plan, to limit deaths in the meantime, by long term isolating the most vulnerable, then merely limiting infections to the rate of hospital capacity, and accepting consequent deaths? A bit hard to sell to us oldies though that we enhance our remaining life expectancy by removing ourselves from  society for the indeterminate time before a vaccine becomes available.

These are the choices, though that should be put before you by your government and the choice they have made, and reasons.  

[restlessnomad]

16 minutes ago, churchward said:

It rather depends on how a vaccine or the anti-bodies it generates in the system lasts in the body.  If it is like the flu people may have to be vaccinated once a year especially if the virus continues to mutate.

No it was not.  The government coronavirus does not mention herd immunity.  It was mentioned and discussed by the medical experts as an eventual potential outcome the distorted by the media and others.

depends on which source you believe, this is an old news in which some scientists urged govt to bring suppressive measures (that was then taken in Italy)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51892402

Edited May 1, 2020 by restlessnomad

[mrsmelly]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think it comes from the early days of the No10 announcements, where it was suggested that its not a big problem and 'we'll just biff it on the nose'. In my view it was not taken seriously by many (including several on this forum) and was just a 'bit of Flu',  and anyway 'we always have 450 people a day die from Cancer'.

 

It took some time before its severity was accepted and action eventually taken and "advised" lockdown began on 23rd March almost 2 months after the first UK case (29th Jan) We already had examples of how virulent it was from other countries and should have  reacted earlier.

 

 

UK

 

 

Italy (for example)

 

 

Oy you  I can take it  and yes, there will still be 450 deaths from cancer alone each day though not published daily when this flu has bitten the dust. More importantly will Pubs survive!!!!!

[Sir Nibble]

I thought this had been laid to rest.

 

To define herd immunity.

It's a state of affairs where such a large proportion of the population is immune to infection that the virus literally cannot find it's next victim and virtually dies out.

 

I can't imagine that anyone would find this state of affairs undesirable, nor point out where it has mistakenly been achieved. Herd immunity is not a process or a policy, it's an outcome. It's also a term that has been used in respect of vaccine effectiveness long before covid 19 was ever heard of, for instance in connection with the possible adverse effects of vaccine hesitancy in compromising the herd immunity to eg measles.

The current policy of lockdown to control infection is a route to herd immunity. I don't recall the existence of any policy of letting the virus run riot until it goes away, though I am entirely open to being reminded of it, but even the existence of such a policy would not change the meaning of the term herd immunity. It means what it says it means, a population where some individuals are vulnerable to infection but the herd as a whole is immune to a pandemic. Anyone opposed to herd immunity or who considers it a mistake is ipso facto in favour of the pandemic.

[Sir Nibble]

1 hour ago, DandV said:

I think Sweden is the only country that has articulated that herd immunity is effectively  it's goal. And it is a valid approach. Australia and New Zealand have specifically rejected the herd immunity path, as between both countries we have only about 7000 people with any sort of immunity. This locks us, and some of our Pacific Island ndighbours into waiting in isolation, perhaps combined isolation,  for the magic, yet to be produced vaccine. 

There is currently a lot of discussion here about the second wave, but now both countries have established both substantial testing regimes and tracing capabilities, the appearance of a few occasional cases is less then we have already suppressed,  with much more rudementory capabilities.

I think most countries are banking on the arrival of a vaccine, sometime, as their escape path, not herd immunity. 

 

You haven't a clue what herd immunity means have you.

"I think most countries are banking on the arrival of a vaccine, sometime, as their escape path, not herd immunity. "

Vaccine is the escape path to.... herd immunity! You do hope to have some credibility don't you?

[Momac]

27 minutes ago, WotEver said:

That is an opinion.  As such it is valid.  It doesn't mean it's correct.

I think it has already been acknowledged that a vaccine will take months to develop with trials etc .

It then has to be manufactured in sufficient quantity

It then has to be delivered 

It then has to be injected 

Lets say we have  500 places giving vaccinations and each place vaccinates 50 people per hour x 8 hrs = 400 per day

If they do 200,000 people a day that's 250  days or one working year for 50 million people