Coronavirus - is enough being done to contain it?

Just watching CNN with a segment looking at The UK, their reporter talks about when Boris said that the UK was reducing lockdown to level 3, meaning the virus was spread throughout the community but not rising, the rate of infection number - R was between 0.5 & 0.9. Once R reaches the "critical" threshold of 1 the virus can multiply exponentially. Now the government advice say that the R number is between 0.7 & 1.

She goes on to report that this is further complicated by the fact that the R number is modeled on data from 3 wks ago, before the initial easing of the lockdowns, before those commuters packed on trains on the underground & before all those idiots had their VE day parties.

Despite this at today's daily briefing Education Secretary Gavin Williamson came out & committed to some children returning to school in June.

Kind of seems that increased lockdown will be inevitable but not in time to stop a second peak & thousands more dying.

I think not only would they put innocent kids at risk of catching the virus teachers as well, and they could see this new syndrome spread that some kids have contracted in NY. I think they have allowed kids to take their own packed lunches but NOT their own pencil cases which frankly smacks of incompetence. Logic would tell you that if kids have their own pencil cases with them and were taught not to share hem it would add to reducing spread of the virus.

---

It was always possible that once the Government moved to ease lockdown they would run the risk of a second peak happening and I think it is likely to end up wih a second peak looking very much possible, even if the Government thinks it has taken a firm grip of the situation at present, I think it has to re - think it's position rapidly.
606 was lively many offering their views on the Bundesliga restarting, and how the season can be finished. Now I think that if lockdown is further extended they have no choice but to null and void the season.
But the lax approach right at the beginning was the first sign that this Government is in no better shape than May's administration was in handling a crisis situation. This Government needs to reach out and get a cross parliament working party for a fresh approach and in getting this situation under control.

(16-05-2020 23:51 )lovebabes56 Wrote:  I think they have allowed kids to take their own packed lunches but NOT their own pencil cases which frankly smacks of incompetence.

I think the packed lunches are to be provided by the school, not brought from home.
The idea being they eat at their desks rather than move around the school.

Not that I'm defending the decision to open the schools.

I would say I would not be surprised if parents keep their kids away from school until THEY feel they are safe.

A lot of parents will be caught between a rock and a hard place, if their jobs start up again and they have no child-care.

Well Eton and Harrow are not opening til September at least

^^ Cant have the next batch of tory elitists getting sick...

(16-05-2020 20:57 )southsidestu Wrote:  Despite this at today's daily briefing Education Secretary Gavin Williamson came out & committed to some children returning to school in June.

Kind of seems that increased lockdown will be inevitable but not in time to stop a second peak & thousands more dying.

Judging from yesterday's ST article, my guess is that the government is being guided less by the reproduction rate than it is by the fatality rate. That is, the fatality rate among COVID patients is somewhere between 0.5% and 0.75% and some 87% of deaths have been among people aged 65+ and 90% have had multiple causes (i.e. COVID-19 complicated by some underlying medical condition like lung disease, heart disease or diabetes).

Or, put differently, even if children and younger, healthier people contract the disease, the chances of them dying from it are very, very, very small.

So the theory seems to be that as long as we can contain the epidemic in care homes and hospitals and keep the elderly and vulnerable isolated, then the rest of the country can (should?) go back to work. Yes, many of them -- including students and teachers -- will be infected, but as long as they (1) don't die, (2) don't need hospitalisation, and (3) stay away from vulnerable people, then a higher rate of infection is the price we pay for re-starting the economy.

Which, I guess is a herd immunity approach, but in a more controlled manner.

All of which poses an ethical conundrum: are we willing to gamble with the lives of our parents and grandparents for the sake of securing our own livelihoods and prosperity?

And I know that sounds like a loaded question, but it's not meant to be. It just seems to be the choice that's being forced upon us.

And tbh it is a loaded question, but one thing the Government has possibly fixated on throughout this thing is the herd immunity approach and with re - opening schools probably is the first stage of re - introducing it.