[Ter]

Boris fucked up, early on, when he had the chance to nip it in the bud. Now that it's everywhere there is no exit strategy and that is why it is a very silly idea, politically, for Labour to jump into bed with the Tories.

There was no realistic exit strategy at any time, unless they had to do a Wuhan scenario. Which was no acceptable that early in the pandemic.
The UK was, like almost all countries in the world, an open society, with hundreds of flights coming in and open roads.

[ingliz]

There was no realistic exit strategy at any time

Hong Kong, drawing on their experience with SARS, appears to have the virus under control.

[Ter]

Hong Kong, drawing on their experience with SARS, appears to have the virus under control.

Yes but I do not think a British Government could have imposed such draconian measures so early in the pandemic, before the morbidity and mortality were known to the public.
But the argument is moot.
I imagine The Guardian shouting hell and high water if BoJo would have attempted such a thing.

[fokker]

Also I too would like to know what exactly the exit strategy is. That isn't a question aimed at you ingliz but merely my own musing. These measures are fine but to be effective they would have to last a significant amount of time and that would have a huge effect on the supply chain and economy or they should have been more stringent like Wuhan which effects liberty but gets results in two months. And if the measures are to be lessened they risk a second wave which defeats the whole point in weakening the spread. Either way what is to take priority? What is more important? Health or economy? What are we planning on doing when cases drop and what do they think will happen there after. Time to be honest with people. Some people think these measures are going to eradicate the virus and that simply isn't true and just looking at every model suggests this could last over a year.

In the eastern EU the R number is about 1.2, so its very close to point where the number of new cases would be going down. It may be sufficient to ban all travel, close all shops and stop public transport during Easter and every weekend after that. Work week could be shortened to 4 days. This will unfortunately not work well in the western EU where the number of new cases every day is too big, it will take a very long time for them to drop.

We may come to the point where complete closure of economy is attempted in the whole Europe and US, but definitely not sooner than in a few months. Food prices will likely go up, so get stocked up.

[B0ycey]

@fokker, new cases in the UK is also leveling out and will most likely be trend downwards soon enough - most likely in days just like in Eastern Europe. Although I have an issue with this statistic (due to lack of testing) it doesn't mean much. Once restrictions are lessened you can expect to see cases rise again. That is true to the East of Europe as much as it is true for the West. Although nations with high infections today will be less impacted or at risk of another infection wave than those who have a low infection rate in the future. And that is more an advantage to Western Europe than it is to Eastern Europe.

[Beren]

Yes but I do not think a British Government could have imposed such draconian measures so early in the pandemic, before the morbidity and mortality were known to the public.
But the argument is moot.
I imagine The Guardian shouting hell and high water if BoJo would have attempted such a thing.

BoJo didn't want to do it anyway, like Trump and Orbán he's much more concerned about the economic consequences than the pandemic itself, so it wasn't The Guardian's supposed reaction that held him back. In Hungary both the opposition and the media were supportive of early hard measures (they always asked for more actually), by the way, I wonder if it was any different in the UK. They oppose Orbán's power grab, though, of course.

[Ter]

Food prices will likely go up, so get stocked up.

Yes I am reading the same thing in different places.
However If you have money there is no need to stock up. During most famines food is available but expensive.
I would be concerned more about the availability of vital medicines when disruptions in the supply chain occurs. That is what I stock up on.

[fokker]

@B0ycey In the UK it will probably take a while as it is working on improving testing and that will inevitably increase the figures initially. Unfortunately economies cannot operate in the current state for too long and restrictions will need to be lessened way before we have a chance to eradicate the virus. Doctors/virologists that get interviewed here all suggest this virus is to stay with us. Economists are calling for lessening the restrictions now.

@Ter Why pay more for food unnecessarily? I would recommend to get stocked for several months while prices are low. Chaos in 3rd world countries will lead to low food production and scarcity everywhere. It could even come to situation when countries start banning export of food.

[JohnRawls]

Yes I am reading the same thing in different places.
However If you have money there is no need to stock up. During most famines food is available but expensive.
I would be concerned more about the availability of vital medicines when disruptions in the supply chain occurs. That is what I stock up on.

There are not going to be any food shortages in Europe and US, we have a severe overproduction of food by a large margin. To the point that we yearly destroy our crops and production not to overflood the market or because we have nowhere to sell it. So food shortages are fear mongering, well, at least in Europe and US.

As for actions that Boris or Trump didn't do. Its complicated. A) Europe/US didn't have any pandemics like Asia. People are forgetting Mers, Sars and swine flu are all Asia based and barely touched Europe. B) Indeed they are more focused on the economy because their promises are on the economy. So its complicated. It is not that they are evil people, it is just that their core promise was a bit different but in the end, it kidna made them look like money > people lives. But that is their own problem.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey In the UK it will probably take a while as it is working on improving testing and that will inevitably increase the figures initially. Unfortunately economies cannot operate in the current state for too long and restrictions will need to be lessened way before we have a chance to eradicate the virus. Doctors/virologists that get interviewed here all suggest this virus is to stay with us. Economists are calling for lessening the restrictions now.

The UK dropped the ball on non testing so now they are delaying testing in order to invest more time in the antibody test as the data from those tests will be far more relevant because we know there is a significant number of asymtomatic victims to this virus that wouldn't normally be tested otherwise. Although their lie about not getting access to ingredients for our lack of testing was found out the other day by the suppliers saying supply of key ingredients is plenty. Today testing is really down to those in hospital who are sick and key workers rather than those who have symptoms which is why I have reservations in these statistics today. Although by using their model as reference,cases are leveling down and I would say that is true in general throughout the UK. But that doesn't stop them rising again once restrictions are lifted.

As for the economic consequences of these measures, I agree. On an economic level they cannot go on much longer. But in terms of health they need to go further and for longer. Until governments decide which course they would rather take, their indecision effects both health and economics worse than focusing on a single objective could ever do. And the impact will be more significant. If we are still pissing around with this in a year then I do hope Sweden don't suffer the same fate as others in West. Their approach seems the most appropriate and I hope they are proven right.

[snapdragon]

No country has an exit strategy. The only thing to do is guess and my guess is most people will get fed up with all the restrictions and be happy at seeing an end to them and possibly be willing to put up with the resulting inability of the NHS to cope.

Unless, it involves them or any of their loved ones, of course.

As for Sweden, so far so good for various reasons, none of which apply to the UK.

There are now louder calls from doctors and scientists for stricter measures, but it's up to them.

[B0ycey]

As for Sweden, so far so good for various reasons, none of which apply to the UK.

Why do they not apply to the UK?

And more importantly what are they???

Although their figures per capita currently mirror that of their Scandinavian neighbours who have stronger measures, Denmark are talking about reducing some measures like reopening schools. Perhaps because the measures are to reduce the fallout when Scandinavia are not in a fallout. Unless Europe are considering these measures to last for a significant amount of time, nations who are over protective now are at a greater risk from a second wave than those of a high infection rate once restrictions are lifted. Which happened with the Spanish flu.

[snapdragon]

Why do they not apply to the UK? :?:

And more importantly what are they???

Many more one person households, which makes it easier to contain the spread of the virus.

Moreover, there is more trust in the public health agency.

People are largely obeying social distancing advice, whereas over here they weren't and still aren't doing it enough.

I don't claim to be remembering rightly, but I'm pretty sure I read approximately a third of Brits are refusing to comply with social distancing as they believe it's not necessary.

Although their figures per capita currently mirror that of their Scandinavian neighbours who have stronger measures, Denmark are talking about reducing some measures like reopening schools. Perhaps because the measures are to reduce the fallout when Scandinavia are not in a fallout. Unless Europe are considering these measures to last for a significant amount of time, nations who are over protective now are at a greater risk from a second wave than those of a high infection rate once restrictions are lifted. Which happened with the Spanish flu.

Coronavirus isn't the Spanish flu, or anything like it. It's not flu.

Whatever Denmark are talking about, Sweden is talking about imposing stronger restrictions.

Closing schools may not have achieved much, although it does for what you could normal outbreaks of flu.

[B0ycey]

Many more one person households, which makes it easier to contain the spread of the virus.

Moreover, there is more trust in the public health agency.

People are largely obeying social distancing advice, whereas over here they weren't and still aren't doing it enough.

I don't claim to be remembering rightly, but I'm pretty sure I read approximately a third of Brits are refusing to comply with social distancing as they believe it's not necessary.

So we aren't following the advice and they are? I disagree. I would say the vast majority are following the advice but anyways, their measures are less strict and as such are more likely to be followed just like liberty in general. They still have containment measures and social distancing whilst still having a functioning society. And their figures still mirror that of their neighbours per capita. Perhaps if you are saying they are getting better results because of that then maybe we should follow their lead.

Coronavirus isn't the Spanish flu, or anything like it. It's not flu.

Who said it was? But should we not look at how viruses spread and infect from history to understand how they are going to do so it the future?

Whatever Denmark are talking about, Sweden is talking about imposing stronger restrictions.

And yet they still haven't. I suspect Sweden will actually do more once their health service is put under pressure. Until then I suspect they are using data to dictate their next move and not follow what everyone else is doing. And maybe that is wise. Because if you use the Spanish flu as an example, the second wave was the most deadly, because isolation (due to the trenches) actually caused the second wave of infections to be more deadly. And those nations that had a higher infection rate from the the first wave had a lighter death rate overall.

[snapdragon]

So we aren't following the advice and they are? I disagree. I would say the vast majority are following the advice but anyways, their measures are less strict and as such are more likely to be followed just like liberty in general. They still have containment measures and social distancing whilst still having a functioning society. And their figures still mirror that of their neighbours per capita. Perhaps if you are saying they are getting better results because of that then maybe we should follow their lead.

They're not getting better results any more.

Who said it was? But should we not look at how viruses spread and infect from history to understand how they are going to do so it the future?

Only if it's relevant.

And yet they still haven't. I suspect Sweden will actually do more once their health service is put under pressure.

Once the horse has bolted.

Until then I suspect they are using data to dictate their next move and not follow what everyone else is doing. And maybe that is wise. Because if you use the Spanish flu as an example, the second wave was the most deadly, because isolation (due to the trenches) actually caused the second wave of infections to be more deadly. And those nations that had a higher infection rate from the the first wave had a lighter death rate overall.

I have no idea what they're doing. Doctors believe the attitude of waiting to so see will lead to catastrophe.
I don't know about you, but I trust them more than I trust politicians.

The government believe a lockdown will lead to economic disaster. They don't seem to be thinking about the situation from a public health point of view.

[B0ycey]

I have no idea what they're doing. Doctors believe the attitude of waiting to so see will lead to catastrophe.
I don't know about you, but I trust them more than I trust politicians.

The government believe a lockdown will lead to economic disaster. They don't seem to be thinking about the situation from a public health point of view.

The health advisors are cautious. And their job is to protect peoples health. But there is a shortage of data to make accurate decisions and so most decisions are reactionary on caution at the moment on models that may or may not be right. But sure they have the best foresight on health as that is their job. The politicians jobs is to take everything into account. And that includes economics.

[snapdragon]

The health advisors are cautious. And their job is to protect peoples health. But there is a shortage of data to make accurate decisions and so most decisions are reactionary on caution at the moment on models that may or may not be right. But sure they have the best foresight on health as that is their job. The politicians jobs is to take everything into account. And that includes economics.

They're doing what Bozo did. Look how well that turned out.

[snapdragon]

It’ll come down to money in the end. There’s a possibility the spread of the virus will wane naturally as summer sets in, then come back again in the autumn. I don’t think anything much will be done about the second wave, though.

[AFAIK]

Completely screwed. It will be turned back into New Labour shortly.

[ingliz]

It will be turned back into New Labour shortly.

It will be?

It already has been! The first thing Keir Starmer did on becoming leader was cull the Corbynites among the Shadow Cabinet. He's got his eyes on the NEC, now.

Normal service has resumed.