So what is the strategy?

[hoff135]

I understand that lockdown and social distancing is to "flatten the curve" but it still does not solve the problem.

It appears by reading facebook posts from friends that they are under the illusion that all this is being done so they dont catch it at all. But unless the virus disappears or can be contained, which both seem impossible at this point, it is here untill the 'herd' has caught it and hopefully immune.

Only other solution seems like a vaccine being rushed through in the next couple of months and forced on us but this seems unlikely.

The government came under flack for their herd immunity idea but as far as i can see right now that is still the route we are going down but the name has been dropped. Albeit they are going to make it slowly drift through the population.

I see people in my area posting that they dont want it brought here etc but as far as I can see it has to.

If i am wrong what is the long term plan? Or am I being stupid in thinking they even have one?

 

[robs1]

That is exactly the plan, lock the vulnerable away and let the rest have it but in a manner that the health services can cope . I see no other way it can be dealt with with locking the country down for 12 months until the hoped for vaccine is here in enough quantities, the country will be bankrupt long before that and riots etc will kill far more than the virus

 

[steveR]

A working test for those who have had the virus, and have (probably) immunity, followed by a Vaccine in 2021.

 

[Pennine Ploughing]

Well you been on Facebook and heard what they said,
You might as well ask on here as there is plenty of feckin experts will be along soon

 

[topground]

Is the strategy to get the number of Intensive care beds to a number where no one dies because of the lack of an IC bed because that would be politically unacceptable. That would mean the restrictions can be lifted to get people back to work but not socialising. My prediction stands that this will happen before the end of April if Dyson and co come up.eith the goods and IC beds exceed demand.
In the absence of any sport there is an opening for TFF to open a book on the outcomes. When will restrictions be lifted, total death rate etc.
Obviously the restrictions in parts of Devon will be upgraded to martial law and apply forever.

 

[Northeastfarmer]

I would imagine we will all be lockdown conditions until a vaccine is developed....let’s hope it doesn’t take a year

 

[hoff135]

I would imagine we will all be lockdown conditions until a vaccine is developed....let’s hope it doesn’t take a year

Do you think it will be forced vaccination? How do you feel about that? Given it may be "rushed through" to some degree

 

[Northeastfarmer]

Do you think it will be forced vaccination? How do you feel about that? Given it may be "rushed through" to some degree

Well what choice will I have? The country can’t go on like this, we will be bankrupt

 

[steveR]

Do you think it will be forced vaccination? How do you feel about that? Given it may be "rushed through" to some degree

Tested on Gove, The Donald and the twit from Brazil first...

 

[hoff135]

Well what choice will I have? The country can’t go on like this, we will be bankrupt

We may have no choice, maybe face jail. But maybe some people would rather take their chance with the virus.

 

[hoff135]

That is exactly the plan, lock the vulnerable away and let the rest have it but in a manner that the health services can cope . I see no other way it can be dealt with with locking the country down for 12 months until the hoped for vaccine is here in enough quantities, the country will be bankrupt long before that and riots etc will kill far more than the virus

I get the feeling a vaccine wont be ready in time. Amazing that so many now think the lockdown means they wont get it

 

[Northeastfarmer]

We may have no choice, maybe face jail. But maybe some people would rather take their chance with the virus.

Well are you happy living in lock down conditions ?

 

[hoff135]

Well are you happy living in lock down conditions ?

Of course not but maybe im more than happy to go back to normal with out being vaccinated. Im not saying i would not want a vaccine but i think i should decide for myself

 

[Northeastfarmer]

Of course not but maybe im more than happy to go back to normal with out being vaccinated. Im not saying i would not want a vaccine but i think i should decide for myself

Well I’m sure the vaccine won’t be forced onto you....if you don’t have it it’s your own gamble

 

[Steevo]

Surely there’s another way....albeit not easy to do.

The virus can only survive if it has hosts. A bit like TB. If the population is kept apart and those who have it can’t transmit it to others and then become immune.....the virus can’t live in them, it can’t get to “new” hosts, so can only survive on surfaces for so long.

If it has no host environment, it cannot continue to exist.

 

[hoff135]

Well I’m sure the vaccine won’t be forced onto you....if you don’t have it it’s your own gamble

Yes that would be my gamble. But other members believe it would be forced on us. I guess time will tell if and when we get one available

 

[Scribus]

Do you think it will be forced vaccination? How do you feel about that? Given it may be "rushed through" to some degree

Human rights and liberties have taken a big enough battering already. Compulsory medication will hopefully be one step too far for even a panic ridden government, although no doubt it will be sold on the precedent of fluoride in water.

 

[Farfrae]

The whole thing is making less and less sense.

On the 19th March Covid 19 was downgraded by Public Health England

"Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID."

and today Lord Sumption gave this interview to the BBC. Lord Sumption, is a former member of the Supreme Court and last year's Reith Lecturer The transcript is from BBC Radio 4's World at One today , Monday 30th March 2020

The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don't pause to ask whether the action will work. They don't ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.

Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.

Q At a time like this as you acknowledge , citizens do look to the state for protection, for assistance, we shouldn't be surprised then if the state takes on new powers, that is what it has been asked to do, almost demanded of it.

A Yes that is absolutely true. We should not be surprised. But we have to recognise that this is how societies become despotisms. And we also have to recognise this is a process which leads naturally to exaggeration. The symptoms of coronavirus are clearly serious for those with other significant medical conditions especially if they're old. There are exceptional cases in which young people have been struck down, which have had a lot of publicity, but the numbers are pretty small. The Italian evidence for instance suggests that only 12% of deaths is it possible to say coronavirus was the main cause of death. So yes this is serious and yes it's understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is : Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up , saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.

Q The executive, the government, is all of a sudden really rather powerful and really rather unscrutinised. Parliament is in recess, it's due to come back in late April, we're not quite sure whether it will or not, the Prime Minister is closeted away, communicating via his phone, there is not a lot in the way of scrutiny is there?

A No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic.

Q The restrictions in movement have also changed the relationship between the police and those whose, in name, they serve. The police are naming and shaming citizens for travelling at what they see as the wrong time or driving to the wrong place. Does that set alarm bells ringing for you, as a former senior member of the judiciary?

A Well, I have to say, it does. I mean, the tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command. Yet in some parts of the country the police have been trying to stop people from doing things like travelling to take exercise in the open country which are not contrary to the regulations, simply because ministers have said that they would prefer us not to. The police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences, but only legal regulations which don't go anything like as far as the government's guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the Fells so that people don't want to go there, is frankly disgraceful.

This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions. There is a natural tendency of course, and a strong temptation for the police to lose sight of their real functions and turn themselves from citizens in uniform into glorified school prefects. I think it's really sad that the Derbyshire Police have failed to resist that.

Q There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say, well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control. What do you say to them?

A What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.

Q Lord Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court, speaking to me earlier.

Also worth a read

How deadly is the coronavirus? It's still far from clear

In announcing the most far-reaching restrictions on personal freedom in the history of our nation, Boris Johnson resolutely followed the scientific advice that he had been given. The advisers to the government seem calm and collected, with a solid consensus among them. In the face of a new viral...

www.spectator.co.uk

It really is starting to look as if we could be crashing the economy unnecessarily.

 

[Scribus]

The whole thing is making less and less sense.

On the 19th March Covid 19 was downgraded by Public Health England

"Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID."

and today Lord Sumption gave this interview to the BBC. Lord Sumption, is a former member of the Supreme Court and last year's Reith Lecturer The transcript is from BBC Radio 4's World at One today , Monday 30th March 2020

The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don't pause to ask whether the action will work. They don't ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.

Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.

Q At a time like this as you acknowledge , citizens do look to the state for protection, for assistance, we shouldn't be surprised then if the state takes on new powers, that is what it has been asked to do, almost demanded of it.

A Yes that is absolutely true. We should not be surprised. But we have to recognise that this is how societies become despotisms. And we also have to recognise this is a process which leads naturally to exaggeration. The symptoms of coronavirus are clearly serious for those with other significant medical conditions especially if they're old. There are exceptional cases in which young people have been struck down, which have had a lot of publicity, but the numbers are pretty small. The Italian evidence for instance suggests that only 12% of deaths is it possible to say coronavirus was the main cause of death. So yes this is serious and yes it's understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is : Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up , saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.

Q The executive, the government, is all of a sudden really rather powerful and really rather unscrutinised. Parliament is in recess, it's due to come back in late April, we're not quite sure whether it will or not, the Prime Minister is closeted away, communicating via his phone, there is not a lot in the way of scrutiny is there?

A No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic.

Q The restrictions in movement have also changed the relationship between the police and those whose, in name, they serve. The police are naming and shaming citizens for travelling at what they see as the wrong time or driving to the wrong place. Does that set alarm bells ringing for you, as a former senior member of the judiciary?

A Well, I have to say, it does. I mean, the tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command. Yet in some parts of the country the police have been trying to stop people from doing things like travelling to take exercise in the open country which are not contrary to the regulations, simply because ministers have said that they would prefer us not to. The police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences, but only legal regulations which don't go anything like as far as the government's guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the Fells so that people don't want to go there, is frankly disgraceful.

This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions. There is a natural tendency of course, and a strong temptation for the police to lose sight of their real functions and turn themselves from citizens in uniform into glorified school prefects. I think it's really sad that the Derbyshire Police have failed to resist that.

Q There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say, well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control. What do you say to them?

A What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.

Q Lord Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court, speaking to me earlier.

Also worth a read

How deadly is the coronavirus? It's still far from clear

In announcing the most far-reaching restrictions on personal freedom in the history of our nation, Boris Johnson resolutely followed the scientific advice that he had been given. The advisers to the government seem calm and collected, with a solid consensus among them. In the face of a new viral...

www.spectator.co.uk

It really is starting to look as if we could be crashing the economy unnecessarily.

Someone talking sense at last. Shows up the shoot to kill brigade as the nasty little b'stards they are.

 

[steveR]

Human rights and liberties have taken a big enough battering already. Compulsory medication will hopefully be one step too far for even a panic ridden government, although no doubt it will be sold on the precedent of fluoride in water.

What will Leo say... He's making a far better fist of the whole sorry mess than Bozzer...!

Impressive speech the other day