Coronavirus: General discussion (see opening post for rules)

[elsiegee40]

Explained: Why we didn’t go into lockdown sooner

https://youtu.be/fCOkEXsfPoQ

[pooley]

Explained: Why we didn’t go into lockdown sooner

https://youtu.be/fCOkEXsfPoQ

 

Loved that, very simple to understand.

[Ditto]

Loved that, very simple to understand.

I fear it is too much of a simplification. I'm not going to criticise the governments approach or any criticise other countries government, but this video seems to assume a finite number of cases from the outset and I believe that to be a fundamental failing in the presentation.

 

*** EDIT *** I also thought the poor language was unnecessary and detracted from the presentation.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Ditto

[PlantHead]

Explained: Why we didn’t go into lockdown sooner

https://youtu.be/fCOkEXsfPoQ

What he ignores though is that if you implement those 3 measures on day 1 then the number of deaths is much lower and you shorten the time of the infection

So just do it at the start.

[kennysarmy]

For School's who have lent out laptops to students so they could work from home, did you all put Web filtering on them?

 

Or have you left ensuring they are used sensibly with the parent?

[ICTDirect_Dave]

*** EDIT *** I also thought the poor language was unnecessary and detracted from the presentation.

 

I thought the video was excellent and he did say get in touch if you've questions, I'm pretty certain he'd go over his data assumptions

 

As for the language. S**tstorm is now standard political fare in germany. Angela Merkel will drop it into press conferences where is doesn't have offensive connotations at all.

[Ditto]

I thought the video was excellent and he did say get in touch if you've questions, I'm pretty certain he'd go over his data assumptions

 

As for the language. S**tstorm is now standard political fare in germany. Angela Merkel will drop it into press conferences where is doesn't have offensive connotations at all.

Well, well, I've learnt something with regards language! It reminds me of a chap at my tennis club that used to say 'I sh*t you not'. Always thought it was an odd expression. With regards the data, others have left questions on the assumptions, so I'll see what responses are given. Having now revisited the video, I see in the opening comments he says about the building the presentation "At 1am. Drunk.". One view I do share, is I don't think the journalists are handling the coverage particularly well. This whole thing about 100,000 tests for example - I get the feeling if they ended up 1,000 short or make the target a day late, it will be headline news.

[smurfomatic]

Loved that, very simple to understand.

 

Oversimplified though, and not a fair comparison - the "second" scenario, with early lockdown, doesn't have either "handwashing" or "stay at home if ill" phases, which he showed made a big difference to the peak anyway.

 

I like the "disclaimer, I'm a geotechnical engineer so I don't know what I'm talking about" bit at the start though, perfectly validates the rest of the video!

[elsiegee40]

A spoonful of Clorox.... 🎶

[StevieM]

The cynic in me also thinks that one of the reasons for delaying in the lockdown was so that the curve would go up sharply enough (or, to put it more bluntly, enough people would get infected and die) for Joe Public to begin to grasp the seriousness and be scared into compliance.

[witch]

What he ignores though is that if you implement those 3 measures on day 1 then the number of deaths is much lower and you shorten the time of the infection

So just do it at the start.

 

That's what I thought. The whole thing is a bit woolly with no real facts as to when those measures were actually implemented

[Andrew_C]

I get the feeling if they ended up 1,000 short or make the target a day late, it will be headline news.

Yup; if they get THAT CLOSE AT ALL it will be headline news. When they miss by 10's of thousands, it'll be "Ah well, business as usual, carry on".

[Ditto]

Yup; if they get THAT CLOSE AT ALL it will be headline news. When they miss by 10's of thousands, it'll be "Ah well, business as usual, carry on".

WHO are clear about testing and there is lots more progress to be made. But if the target was set at 25,000 and achieved, is it better than achieving a higher number but failing to reach the target. This is one aspect of the journalism that annoys me and leads to politicians wanting to avoid committing to numbers and dates. I once worked for IBM and one of the few SVP's to impress me was one who always pushed for higher targets and then celebrated the success achieved striving for that target even when missed. It took a while to adapt to the strategy, but it has it's logic.

[6Foot2]

Link: Stay and Play at Home with Popular Past Google Doodles: Cricket (2017)

 

As COVID-19 continues to impact communities around the world, people and families everywhere are spending more time at home. In light of this, we’re launching a throwback Doodle series looking back at some of our popular interactive Google Doodle games!

 

Stay and play at home with today’s featured throwback:

 

Our 2017 Doodle game celebrating Cricket!

 

[6Foot2]

I have heard people on the TV saying that they will need to 'redesign' school classrooms to allow for social distancing when they re-open...

Link: Coronavirus: How do you social distance in schools? [bBC News]

 

The Scottish government is considering if it is feasible for children to carry out physical distancing in schools once the lockdown is over. So how can you social distance in a school?

 

What the government says

 

The Scottish government says there are early signs that the impact of the coronavirus is being contained.

 

It has published a new document outlining the basis of an exit strategy from the UK-wide lockdown that has been in place since 23 March.

 

A move away from the current restrictions would include the continuation of social distancing.

 

The Scottish government said work was being carried out to study how "physical distancing" could be continued in schools, transport, businesses and recreation.

 

How would this work in schools?

 

• Limits could be put on class sizes
  
• A few year groups or pupils could take turns between studying at school and at home
  
• Some children could work one week and others the next
  
• Some pupils could work in the morning, others in the afternoons
  
• Classrooms could be redesigned to ensure social distancing
  
• Pupils could take their breaks at different times
  

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that if social distancing continued, then people staying 2m (6.6ft) apart would put an upper limit on how many pupils could be in a classroom.

 

"Do we have to take classes and divide them into two, where half of the class is there one week and the other half another week?," she said. "Or one half in the morning and the other in the afternoon?"

 

Ms Sturgeon accepted it would be more difficult to get younger children to maintain social-distancing rules...

[mikeprice]

The cynic in me also thinks that one of the reasons for delaying in the lockdown was so that the curve would go up sharply enough (or, to put it more bluntly, enough people would get infected and die) for Joe Public to begin to grasp the seriousness and be scared into compliance.

 

I agree with this

 

I think they assessed the 'British people' would react badly to a lockdown unless the reason was clear and dire - i.e. deaths

so they waited longer to impose it than they might have done otherwise

[ICTDirect_Dave]

They've said on several occasions, that lockdown would be hard and without having enough evidence to back up the seriousness of the situation they expected that the public would just ignore the new rules.

 

I have to say, I think they were right to wait. The lockdown has curtailed so many freedoms that at any other time it would be considered unthinkable & if they'd instigated it too soon then I am certain there would have been far more people willing to ignore the new rules.

Edited April 28, 2020 by ICTDirect_Dave

[Theblacksheep]

Failing to lock down by one week, things like football and horse racing (embarrassing that went on) still going on with so many international flights without tracking and tracing has given us one of the worse death levels in Europe. Sorry, it would have made no difference to the public had we locked down a week earlier, apart from fewer deaths.

[FishCustard]

Point of order - the UK has one of the highest absolute death counts because we are the second(?) largest country in Europe by population.

 

In terms of deaths per head of population (see here) we are well behind the other countries with large epidemics (Italy, France, Spain, etc).

 

FWIW I also agree regarding the lockdown - it's already starting to "fray", introducing it earlier would have led to it fragmenting earlier, at a more critical point. I do agree that Cheltenham should've been canned though.

[StevieM]

The cynic in me also thinks that one of the reasons for delaying in the lockdown was so that the curve would go up sharply enough (or, to put it more bluntly, enough people would get infected and die) for Joe Public to begin to grasp the seriousness and be scared into compliance.

I'm not saying, necessarily, that it was wrong to wait to impose the lockdown, by the way; I'm just offering an opinion as to why. I do think that there were other things that could have been done earlier, though, rather than just the three actions shown in the video, but we'll have to let history be the judge of that.

[the_quick]

Point of order - the UK has one of the highest absolute death counts because we are the second(?) largest country in Europe by population.

 

In terms of deaths per head of population (see here) we are well behind the other countries with large epidemics (Italy, France, Spain, etc).

 

FWIW I also agree regarding the lockdown - it's already starting to "fray", introducing it earlier would have led to it fragmenting earlier, at a more critical point. I do agree that Cheltenham should've been canned though.

 

 

The problem with that "point of order" is how those death were calculated. Italy and France calculated all death from Covid, we in UK counted only ones in Hospitals. If we add all the death, it will come to more than double. FT did some calculation (free to read):

https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab

[Ketlane]

Two pieces with interesting and informed views on lockdown:

Germany - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/virologist-christian-drosten-germany-coronavirus-expert-interview

New York, Washington state and the US - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leaders-let-scientists-take-the-lead-new-yorks-did-not

Edited April 28, 2020 by Ketlane

[FishCustard]

The problem with that "point of order" is how those death were calculated. Italy and France calculated all death from Covid, we in UK counted only ones in Hospitals. If we add all the death, it will come to more than double. FT did some calculation (free to read):

https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab

 

To be fair, comparing death rates between countries isn't sensible. As you say, different countries count differently (Belgium has an expanded definition of what a COVID-19 death is, hence its high death rate). Without identical methodologies you'll get nowhere. Not sure I like the FT's "extrapolation" methodology either.

[elsiegee40]

To be fair, comparing death rates between countries isn't sensible. As you say, different countries count differently (Belgium has an expanded definition of what a COVID-19 death is, hence its high death rate). Without identical methodologies you'll get nowhere. Not sure I like the FT's "extrapolation" methodology either.

 

Just made the same point to my brother in law who was trying to compare the UK (population ~67 million and a travel hub) with New Zealand (population <5 million, “at the end of the line” for travel and a bigger land area than the UK)

 

To compare them is like comparing apples with oranges; both fruit, but very different.

[Ditto]

Just made the same point to my brother in law who was trying to compare the UK (population ~67 million and a travel hub) with New Zealand (population <5 million, “at the end of the line” for travel and a bigger land area than the UK)

 

To compare them is like comparing apples with oranges; both fruit, but very different.

Comparisons are difficult for the reasons highlighted, yet in the daily briefings the medical experts and politicians talk about collaboration and shared learning by comparing across countries. Difficult to do, doesn't mean we don't or shouldn't, but understanding the differences in detail is necessary. I'd be interested to hear what the views are on which countries are 'most like' the UK.