O/T:- Are we over-reacting to COVD19?

[TheBlackHorse]

... just the usual political point scoring in the absence of the no-mark/where are they Liebour abdicators. Pathetic.

[Elite_Pie]

... just the usual political point scoring in the absence of the no-mark/where are they Liebour abdicators. Pathetic.

So do you think the government have handled this situation well Horsey?

[upthemaggies]

Financial Times pushing the idea that half of us may have had Covid already so the death rate could be as low as 0.1% and, basically we can all go back to work and carry on as normal.
I hope they're right, but until we get testing sorted out it's just another theory.

[countygump]

Financial Times pushing the idea that half of us may have had Covid already so the death rate could be as low as 0.1% and, basically we can all go back to work and carry on as normal.
I hope they're right, but until we get testing sorted out it's just another theory.

It has been pointed out to me on several occasions that there were an epidemic of nasty coughs about pre-christmas. In truth my wife hasn't recovered from a cough yet from last December. Tho that could be due to her severe Rheumatoid Arthritis and the drugs she takes which lower her immune system or even the Benno's she crams in her gob.

[countygump]

Prince Charles has Covid 19 then? He won't be receiving any preferential treatment tho, yeah righto. Seems he's had it since the 12th of this month. I'm coming to the conclusion that there is more than one strain. A mild one and a nasty aggressive one.

[LaxtonLad]

Financial Times pushing the idea that half of us may have had Covid already so the death rate could be as low as 0.1% and, basically we can all go back to work and carry on as normal.
I hope they're right, but until we get testing sorted out it's just another theory.

Do you know, that's just what I've been thinking? That a dose of this virus has been doing the rounds for a while now but has just been accepted as a slight cough or cold by otherwise healthy people?

I've said before that a healthy immune system will see a herd immunity established.

[upthemaggies]

The FT piece come from a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University, her research "presents a very different view of the epidemic to the modelling at Imperial College London". The article goes on to say "The modelling brings back into focus “herd immunity”, the idea that the virus will stop spreading when enough people have become resistant to it because they have already been infected. The government abandoned its unofficial herd immunity strategy — allowing controlled spread of infection — after its scientific advisers said this would swamp the National Health Service with critically ill patients."
This could turn out to be a pretty irresponsible editorial decision, to run with ahead of more widespread testing. The piece acknowledges that NHS could be completely overwhelmed, so I'm not sure throwing 'herd immunity' back into the mix at this point in time is wise. Business owners are going to see this as a green light to ignore the advice to shut up shop.

[jackal2]

Financial Times pushing the idea that half of us may have had Covid already so the death rate could be as low as 0.1% and, basically we can all go back to work and carry on as normal. I hope they're right, but until we get testing sorted out it's just another theory.

Albeit at various speeds, the major European countries have implemented virtual lockdowns in line with the scientific advice. Most would say in this situation that it is better to follow the scientific advice than any other 'noise' and to keep the message to the public as clear as possible, but of course there are no guarantees that it will work.

Over the past couple of days the number of new cases emerging in Italy has reportedly begun to fall, suggesting that the lockdown there may gradually be reducing transmission, but how long can you realistically maintain such a lockdown before the economic effects start to bite deep into people's lives? And what happens to the infection and death rate when the rules are officially eased, or when people in desperation begin to break ranks of their own accord?

Human nature when facing a scary natural phenomenon is to seek ways we can 'control' it, so what we're seeing from scientists and governments at present is perfectly understandable on a social and political level, but it could be a long time yet before we are able to assess whether these actions genuinely reduced the impact of COVID-19, or simply re-phased it. Can we in effect 'beat' nature?

Incidentally, the same website that provides latest statistics on the COVID-19 outbreak…

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

… also offers a separate page illustrating the daily growth in the world population, which will barely be touched by current events …

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

If you believe that human activity is the driving factor behind global warming, then with the population increasing at this rate we're all knackered anyway.

Sorry! It's being so cheerful that keeps me going!