O/T Coronavirus Thread (4)

[flourbasher]

Our government was aware of it, had conducted planning exercises and was deemed to be one of the best prepared countries in the world.

None of the above helps with a population that has little or no experience of dealing with a stealthy, easily transmitted virus with a high mortality rate, however. Take a look through the posts on this board an you find posters who were comparing Covid19 to 'flu and moaning about restrictions placed upon them. A population that had experience of SARS and MERS would be far less likely to do that. Look at Japan, where the government had no power to impose a lockdown, but the population did it anyway.

I think you're being too generous and conciliatory to the govt and UK health advisors.
A more aggressive approach would have reduced deaths and reduced the lockdown period. It would also have led to a reduced impact on the economy which we are yet to feel the full effects of.
I'm not sure how allowing Cheltenham and Anfield would be deemed best prepared.
It's not acceptable for our govt to say it's never happened here before so we did our best.

[KerrAvon]

I think you're being too generous and conciliatory to the govt and UK health advisors.
A more aggressive approach would have reduced deaths and reduced the lockdown period. It would also have led to a reduced impact on the economy which we are yet to feel the full effects of.
I'm not sure how allowing Cheltenham and Anfield would be deemed best prepared.
It's not acceptable for our govt to say it's never happened here before so we did our best.

Covid-19 is a completely new disease which was not reported to WHO until December 30th. With that being the case, I think it completely fair to cut the UK government some slack. The science of the illness and the dynamics of its spread are still being researched and debated - even the mortality rate is uncertain. Coupled with that, it is clear that the virus has mutated several times, including becoming better able to spread and to be more stealthy (with people becoming infectious before they become symptomatic), which means that the maths that sits under governmental responses has also changed over time.

I’m sure that the government’s actions will be scrutinised for years at the end of this (as they should be). When we know what their advisers were telling them and can see the details of the decision making, we will be able to assess their performance from an informed position. Trying to do it now helps nobody and risks making unfair judgements. If the eventual conclusion is that 'they did their best' then surely we could ask for no more?

[ragingpup]

Our government was aware of it, had conducted planning exercises and was deemed to be one of the best prepared countries in the world.

None of the above helps with a population that has little or no experience of dealing with a stealthy, easily transmitted virus with a high mortality rate, however. Take a look through the posts on this board an you find posters who were comparing Covid19 to 'flu and moaning about restrictions placed upon them. A population that had experience of SARS and MERS would be far less likely to do that. Look at Japan, where the government had no power to impose a lockdown, but the population did it anyway.

The population itself didn't have much of a problem with undertaking the lockdown once it became clear how the virus was moving and of the necessity to stay home. We did it immediately and quite effectively.

the problem was it happened 2 or 3 weeks later than it should have happened as we weren't given appropriate information and instruction before then. That delay has proven deadly and is why we are where we are.

[KerrAvon]

The population itself didn't have much of a problem with undertaking the lockdown once it became clear how the virus was moving and of the necessity to stay home. We did it immediately and quite effectively.

the problem was it happened 2 or 3 weeks later than it should have happened as we weren't given appropriate information and instruction before then. That delay has proven deadly and is why we are where we are.

I disagree with your assessment of the population’s acceptance of the lockdown. Look back through this site and you will find people belly-aching about not being able to drive into the Peak District and heated debates about the wisdom of having a beer and food event in the NYS car park. Look at how people continued to flock to pubs and restaurants until they were closed. In my opinion, opposition to the lockdown would have been much louder if we had tried to do it earlier. People followed the lockdown because they could see the danger at the time it was imposed or, as you put it - once it became clear how the virus was moving and of the necessity to stay home.

See above for my views upon the wisdom of trying to assess the government’s actions at this moment in time. You should also check out ‘hindsight bias’ and ‘outcome bias’. I have to deal with them both in my job.

[millertop]

No, I get what it's supposed to do but it seems pointless.

Why don't I just contact the people myself, as I surely would anyway (how many identifiable people will be within 6 feet of me for at least 15 minutes?) rather than waiting for some unemployed media studies graduate to ring me when I'm feeling like crap, giving them the information and then getting them to do the contacting? It makes no sense.

Any contacts I can't identify (say someone sat next to me on a bus) will be untraceable by the 'tracers' anyway.

I just don't see the benefit of adding this additional expensive layer of 25,000 tracers at all.

Also can we trust them that have just gone back to work to have time off to self isolate?

I know I wouldn’t trust some

[Lasterman]

Also can we trust them that have just gone back to work to have time off to self isolate?

I know I wouldn’t trust some

Probably not, but I can't see why this would make it any more likely that they would comply.

[millertop]

Probably not, but I can't see why this would make it any more likely that they would comply.

They’d be on the app and their movements tracked so they’d have to comply or risked getting into trouble

[Lasterman]

They’d be on the app and their movements tracked so they’d have to comply or risked getting into trouble

There is no app! And even if there was, it would be completely voluntary.

[millertop]

There is no app! And even if there was, it would be completely voluntary.

Test and track service then or is there any other word you’d like to use?
They can also make it compulsory if need to

[rolymiller]

Well we can't trust govt advisers to start with I suppose...