Observations from the last few days.

Anyone stockpiling or profiteering should be shot on sight.

People are starting to understand. Slowly. There are still too many idiots out there thinking it doesn't apply to them.

The government is doing a sterling job. This week's measures will save millions of jobs and businesses. The damage is still going to devastating but these levels of support are reassuring. Many thousands in my sector have been laid off already, these measures could save most of them as they can be applied retrospectively even if already laid off.

The Guardian is most despicable, divisive, fear-mongering feckin pathetic rag. Makes the Mail looks positively saintly.

12 weeks (or more) at home is gonna be a bstard. But not as much of a bstard as frontline NHS workers are about to face. Calm before the perfect storm.

Is the government's strategy correct? My question in response to that would be - so Taiwan (and other places) have shut down and contained things really, really well - but what then happens as soon as they relax and the population floods back out there and flights recommence and some bugger jets in breathing COVID19 all over the place? They're back to square one, whether in May/June/July or end of the year and a vaccine before then is unlikely.

We are timing things carefully. Shut down too early and it's pointless. People cannot and will not isolate for more than a couple of months, and the population is still susceptible. Shut down too late and...it's too late. Isolate the vulnerable early and then shut down at the right time and you will already have people recovering and therefore immune and able to get back to work. The virus then also spreads far more slowly enabling the NHS to manage as best it can.

You cannot contain or escape this virus, you have to accept that and manage the outcome as best you can.

They've denied herd immunity is part of the strategy but it was let slip and to be fair it makes sense. The problem is that means exposing some people who will die, and society cannot handle that. Some people - quite a lot - are going to die whatever happens. I'm not sure why that was such a shock when Boris said it.

This is a great demonstration of how it works (albeit the models don't eliminate the deaths): https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... simulator/

Observations from the last few days.

Anyone stockpiling or profiteering should be shot on sight.

People are starting to understand. Slowly. There are still too many idiots out there thinking it doesn't apply to them.

The government is doing a sterling job. This week's measures will save millions of jobs and businesses. The damage is still going to devastating but these levels of support are reassuring. Many thousands in my sector have been laid off already, these measures could save most of them as they can be applied retrospectively even if already laid off.

The Guardian is most despicable, divisive, fear-mongering feckin pathetic rag. Makes the Mail looks positively saintly.

12 weeks (or more) at home is gonna be a bstard. But not as much of a bstard as frontline NHS workers are about to face. Calm before the perfect storm.

Is the government's strategy correct? My question in response to that would be - so Taiwan (and other places) have shut down and contained things really, really well - but what then happens as soon as they relax and the population floods back out there and flights recommence and some bugger jets in breathing COVID19 all over the place? They're back to square one, whether in May/June/July or end of the year and a vaccine before then is unlikely.

We are timing things carefully. Shut down too early and it's pointless. People cannot and will not isolate for more than a couple of months, and the population is still susceptible. Shut down too late and...it's too late. Isolate the vulnerable early and then shut down at the right time and you will already have people recovering and therefore immune and able to get back to work. The virus then also spreads far more slowly enabling the NHS to manage as best it can.

You cannot contain or escape this virus, you have to accept that and manage the outcome as best you can.

They've denied herd immunity is part of the strategy but it was let slip and to be fair it makes sense. The problem is that means exposing some people who will die, and society cannot handle that. Some people - quite a lot - are going to die whatever happens. I'm not sure why that was such a shock when Boris said it.

This is a great demonstration of how it works (albeit the models don't eliminate the deaths): https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... simulator/

Good post Cronus.

I think this crisis is a good way of shining a light on peoples' character. You very quickly see who thinks "me me me" and who has a sense of duty/community. Amongst the people I know/ my facebook feed etc the correlation I have noticed is that the ones who are usually the loudest to bang on about "patriotism" and "we should put British people first", are the ones who are now least willing to make any compromise in their lives that might help protect vulnerable or elderly people in their community.

You have summed up the basic trade-off well and basically that argument is what underpinned the Imperial college modelling that is now driving the government's strategy: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf

One interesting challenge will be, if the social distancing measures are TOO successful, it will undermine support for the measures themselves. What about if it all works, and the death count slows to a trickle. Everyone will start saying "come on, its just like the flu whats all the fuss about, let us get back to work".

Good post Cronus.

I think this crisis is a good way of shining a light on peoples' character. You very quickly see who thinks "me me me" and who has a sense of duty/community. Amongst the people I know/ my facebook feed etc the correlation I have noticed is that the ones who are usually the loudest to bang on about "patriotism" and "we should put British people first", are the ones who are now least willing to make any compromise in their lives that might help protect vulnerable or elderly people in their community.

You have summed up the basic trade-off well and basically that argument is what underpinned the Imperial college modelling that is now driving the government's strategy: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf

One interesting challenge will be, if the social distancing measures are TOO successful, it will undermine support for the measures themselves. What about if it all works, and the death count slows to a trickle. Everyone will start saying "come on, its just like the flu whats all the fuss about, let us get back to work".

Fair enough except, nothing whatsoever could make the Mail saintly.

I'm surprised but not too surprised that Boris has adopted a sort of socialistic response in a Joe Gormley socialist way, to the crisis. The swivel eyed right wingers who think they are firmly in charge must be squirming in their seats at some of the measures being implemented.

I'd say so far, well done and thank God Maggie isn't in charge.

Fair enough except, nothing whatsoever could make the Mail saintly.

I'm surprised but not too surprised that Boris has adopted a sort of socialistic response in a Joe Gormley socialist way, to the crisis. The swivel eyed right wingers who think they are firmly in charge must be squirming in their seats at some of the measures being implemented.

I'd say so far, well done and thank God Maggie isn't in charge.