The NHS has many flaws - too big, too unmanageable, over bureaucratic, no limit on use. However, it does have one big advantage - enormous buying power which means it can beat down the price from suppliers. So I don't think you are correct on that point.

The EU doesn't have a bigger buying power than the NHS?

 

Lock them up, for their own safety.

Yes, us liberals can't advocate the army shooting them 

​

 UK abandons total French exemption from 14-day quarantine for visitors

https://www.ft.com/content/ddf6b198-727b-43ec-a5e4-aef8b5d8fb06

​

 

In my case, I was sent home from work in late March due to a fever (and I had other symptoms, such as a sore throat. I also had night sweats following that, a few days later a cough, aches, pains and a general "out of it" feeling - like mild flu). It seems most likely it was mild flu after all.

The headteacher was convinced I'd had Covid, I was much less certain but wanted to get a test as soon as reasonably practicable.

I would suggest that those thinking they had it in December, January or even February are most unlikely to have had it - but we need those antibody tests rolled out pronto. If nothing else, it brings peace of mind knowing whether you'd had it or not!

 

In my case, I was sent home from work in late March due to a fever (and I had other symptoms, such as a sore throat. I also had night sweats following that, a few days later a cough, aches, pains and a general "out of it" feeling - like mild flu). It seems most likely it was mild flu after all.

The headteacher was convinced I'd had Covid, I was much less certain but wanted to get a test as soon as reasonably practicable.

I would suggest that those thinking they had it in December, January or even February are most unlikely to have had it - but we need those antibody tests rolled out pronto. If nothing else, it brings peace of mind knowing whether you'd had it or not!

Do you know how accurate the test results are? Is it possible that your results are a false negative?

I wonder how many people self isolated thinking they’d got it?  

Yes Caz, it was interesting reading accounts a while back where a number were fairly sure they might have had it. I think most winter's there is something nasty doing the rounds. This year in particular symptons have been heightened and highlighted where in the past they were just accepted as winter illness, in its many guises.

 

The economy underlies everything - without a functioning economy, we cannot fund public services.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/15/we-could-open-up-again-and-forget-the-whole-thing/

"...

Wittkowski:  Now compare Sweden and the UK. The only difference is that Sweden did fine. They did have a problem. They had a relatively high number of deaths among the nursing homes.They decided to keep society open and they forgot to close nursing homes. Remarkably, the politicians acknowledged that it was a mistake to extend that open concept to nursing homes. 

..."

No danger of that with our politicians. Too busy saying how we are "beating" Europe most of the time and how well we have done.

Question for  Dev etc. then, same sort of one asked of MM repeatedly because he's expressing his view. Lockdown is prioritising treatment of one illness amongst many that kill people. Why is the person with covid worth more than the cancer patient whose op is cancelled etc.? 

There was an article the other day about implications for global TB deaths because of how far back the covid efforts have set that field back. (1.6m I think was the number the lady was estimating) Why is okay to let those people die to save someone from covid? Is it because a lot of them will be in poorer countries so that's all okay then?

The linear arguments that are used on here to attack (not debate because there's precious little of that) alternative views are thoroughly depressing. Suggest the actions to contain covid are causing a lot of harm and maybe enough harm that the approach needs to be looked at again and you're callous and putting the economy before people's lives. Advocate an action that will as a consequence kill people (or allow them to die to be less emotive) and you're correct and a moral person <blink>

Out of curiosity in the event of a serious explosion affecting hundreds or thousands of people how do medics decide who to treat. Do they look at someone with a serious leg wound that they can definitely save the same as they do someone with multiple injuries that would take many medics to work on for a slim chance of saving them (and that they know will mean others die that they would have saved whilst working on this person) Or do they have to make a (cr*ppy) call and save the injured who would definitely survive with treatment?

When looking at operations do they say have it because we know you'll die without it or do they take in to account the harm that having the op may cause versus the benefits? You know, kind of like the harm an unspecific society wide lockdown will cause versus the harm it saves? How do you balance the mental health issues (and deaths) isolation will cause versus more people getting out and exercising due to the lockdown. How many are doing that versus those that are just sat around doing eff all and becoming a future heart attack or cancer victim as a result? How many lives are being saved due to a reduction in pollution versus deaths caused due to fear of visiting medical establishments,or a funnelling of resources and research away from a different medical field? Any clear answers on that or just opinions?

It's not heresy or an automatic sign of a callous, uncaring person to look at things from a different point of view. Doesn't necessarily make it right of course, any more than the opposing view does. 

Same thing I've said before I know and presumably won't mean anything now either. Must be nice to have that certainty and grasp of an extremely complicated and evolving situation to know so unequivocally what the best course of action is.

Very well argued HD. Medics already discriminate between patients via a process known as "triage" - when too many present, they have to choose whom to treat first on the basis of multiple criteria. Those least likely to survive are left to last.

Do you know how accurate the test results are? Is it possible that your results are a false negative?

As far as I'm aware, with 100% sensitivity and 99.7% specificity, there will be no false negatives, just (very few) false positives. If it says you haven't had it, you really haven't!

EDIT: And regarding those who felt they had it, a reminder that there was a widespread outbreak of H3N2 flu in December and, as has been said below, followed by a type B flu outbreak.

I wonder if that's what I caught the tail end of? (I know my work colleague's partner came down with flu-like symptoms 10 days before I got it, as did my work collague's mum, but not the colleague herself - albeit she has a perennial cold! The partner had been working at the time next door to where Kent's first Covid-19 case had been reported and he was using the same small Tesco at lunchtime that they all used at the TV studio).

FWIW, the latest flu report is here. Note the H3N2 peak in winter and the massive spike in deaths over the past few weeks (Covid).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/885092/National_influenza_report_14_May_2020_week_20.pdf

 

It shows that intelligent and analytical people like you can't be sure if they've had it or not. I have long suspected that most who say they "had it in January or February" are wrong and in many cases guilty of wishful thinking.  Your result reinforces my belief. 

 Me? I would slowly open the economy but insist (by law and heavy fines) people self distanced all the time and wear masks - and get ppe for workers sorted out first too! What value do I put on human life? I don't know the answer, but 30-50K lives have been cut short and, of those infected, roughly the same % have died as did in WW2 (about 1% of Uk population died in WW2). We celebrate and honour those wartime deaths, with covid the best we (not me) seem to be able to do is clap health workers (as if that somehow provided them with the protection they need) and, effectively, call for more deaths....

Yep, that's pretty much what I would do. I realise that the young might infect their parents but I would start to give them more freedom than other groups first of all. I will  more or less continue to follow sensible and logical  lockdown rules (which isn't all of them) anyway whatever the Government says.

So we need to shield those who are vulnerable, get the testing and contact tracing ramped up and then to get the economy and society for the rest of us functioning as close to normally as is possible.

Few would disagree with that. But you seem to be suggesting it the other way round. We've got to do the first bit first.

​

 UK abandons total French exemption from 14-day quarantine for visitors

Quote

The British government has abandoned a proposed total exemption of France from a planned two-week quarantine for anyone visiting the UK, after critics asked why an entire country should be excluded from the scheme. Instead, only key professionals who need to travel between mainland Europe and Britain for purposes such as delivering freight will be excluded. The UK authorities will this weekend finesse their plans for the 14-day quarantine for almost anyone coming into the country in order to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

https://www.ft.com/content/ddf6b198-727b-43ec-a5e4-aef8b5d8fb06

​

Its not a completely irrational idea.

Lots of countries have done this kind of thing. Australia/NewZealand, Baltic countries e.c.t.

The premise is, keep a FTA between two countries and strictly police anything outside of that. You get some benefits asociated with economic activity and its relatively easy to collectively police the borders of only two countries.

 

Very well argued HD. Medics already discriminate between patients via a process known as "triage" - when too many present, they have to choose whom to treat first on the basis of multiple criteria. Those least likely to survive are left to last.

 

There's an entertaining irony here that generally your political views are a world apart from mine and I suspect mine are much, much closer to Devs 

As someone who was surprised to find that underneath his general dislike for people there's quite a liberally viewed individual I find it interesting that a lot of people with what I would consider liberal views are so strongly behind 'lockdown' or whatever you want to call it, which is a very extreme population control (whether you feel it's fully, partially or not justified). My experience on here and other social media is that some of my more liberally minded mates are the ones most stridently calling for continued and harsher lockdowns, mostly whilst dismissing any view that lockdown isn't or may not be good in all cases.

Population controls for a variety of reasons can be viewed historically and you generally have liberals (like me) pointing out why a current course of action can be viewed so negatively. Yet now it seems the liberals are on the side of the societal control. It's a crazy old world sometimes

Good old Dan:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8303639/DAN-HODGES-dont-worst-Covid-19-death-rate-Europe-wicked-pretend-do.html

Now wait for Beast to blow a gasket.

Question for  Dev etc. then, same sort of one asked of MM repeatedly because he's expressing his view. Lockdown is prioritising treatment of one illness amongst many that kill people. Why is the person with covid worth more than the cancer patient whose op is cancelled etc.?

I'm not sure I agree with your assumption. I think the evidence is Covid19 kills 1% of those it infects (with the caveat we now know better who the 1% are). Without a lockdown I think there would be up to 1% death (so that's 700k or so in the UK) and within a month or two.

The would be no case of anyone getting any treatment in that scenario as the NHS would be swamped.

Now, as no one has let C19 rip (not in a densely populated country anyway) we haven't seen the 'control' of the experiment run which has allowed people to start (as MM does ,and four) rubbishing the lockdown and what it has achieved.

There was an article the other day about implications for global TB deaths because of how far back the covid efforts have set that field back. (1.6m I think was the number the lady was estimating) Why is okay to let those people die to save someone from covid? Is it because a lot of them will be in poorer countries so that's all okay then?

Who said it was? I haven't.

The problem is that it was clear without a lock down C19 would simply let rip and rapidly - in a few months. Health care system under strain everywhere. Its not either or it is which was worse; lockdown and control or not lock down and chaos. I pick the former - most govt have too. I don't think lockdown is anything other than a bad option but not as bad as the alternative.

The linear arguments that are used on here to attack (not debate because there's precious little of that) alternative views are thoroughly depressing. Suggest the actions to contain covid are causing a lot of harm and maybe enough harm that the approach needs to be looked at again and you're callous and putting the economy before people's lives. Advocate an action that will as a consequence kill people (or allow them to die to be less emotive) and you're correct and a moral person <blink>

I simply wanted an answer to a question - so effective YOU are trying to attack me for asking it.... Once I get an answer I move on, otherwise I'm persistent - if debate isn't about asking question to get answers then what is it???. I ask the question because I too find it difficult to answer.

The answer for me is that lockdown was (is) the least bad option.

Out of curiosity in the event of a serious explosion affecting hundreds or thousands of people how do medics decide who to treat. Do they look at someone with a serious leg wound that they can definitely save the same as they do someone with multiple injuries that would take many medics to work on for a slim chance of saving them (and that they know will mean others die that they would have saved whilst working on this person) Or do they have to make a (cr*ppy) call and save the injured who would definitely survive with treatment?

Lock down prevented doctors being faced with the dilemma of which desperately sick people to nurse. Lock down has worked!

When looking at operations do they say have it because we know you'll die without it or do they take in to account the harm that having the op may cause versus the benefits? You know, kind of like the harm an unspecific society wide lockdown will cause versus the harm it saves? How do you balance the mental health issues (and deaths) isolation will cause versus more people getting out and exercising due to the lockdown. How many are doing that versus those that are just sat around doing eff all and becoming a future heart attack or cancer victim as a result? How many lives are being saved due to a reduction in pollution versus deaths caused due to fear of visiting medical establishments,or a funnelling of resources and research away from a different medical field? Any clear answers on that or just opinions?

Again, R, data from other countries and the rest pointed to C19 causing 1% death and rapidly (in a month or two) - and that with enough health care. Faced with the prospect of up to 350k people being very sick a month what other option but lockdown was there???

It's not heresy or an automatic sign of a callous, uncaring person to look at things from a different point of view. Doesn't necessarily make it right of course, any more than the opposing view does. 

Same thing I've said before I know and presumably won't mean anything now either. Must be nice to have that certainty and grasp of an extremely complicated and evolving situation to know so unequivocally what the best course of action is.

Again, where is the reasoning wrong that: c19 causes (and it might change if it become more benign but we're talking back in March here) 1% death and over a few months IF left to let rip. That maths is then straightforward, and the effect on health care systems likewise.

 

There's an entertaining irony here that generally your political views are a world apart from mine and I suspect mine are much, much closer to Devs 

As someone who was surprised to find that underneath his general dislike for people there's quite a liberally viewed individual I find it interesting that a lot of people with what I would consider liberal views are so strongly behind 'lockdown' or whatever you want to call it, which is a very extreme population control (whether you feel it's fully, partially or not justified). My experience on here and other social media is that some of my more liberally minded mates are the ones most stridently calling for continued and harsher lockdowns, mostly whilst dismissing any view that lockdown isn't or may not be good in all cases.

Population controls for a variety of reasons can be viewed historically and you generally have liberals (like me) pointing out why a current course of action can be viewed so negatively. Yet now it seems the liberals are on the side of the societal control. It's a crazy old world sometimes

For some reason, this whole debate is suddenly becoming politicised, both here and in the USA. More understandable in the USA I would have thought, given the polarisation of politics over there, but here is an interesting poll published in The Times today:

"At the same time a partisan gulf is widening on how to balance the risks of spreading coronavirus with the need to resuscitate the economy. A Politico/Morning Consult survey this week found that 72 per cent of Democrats were more worried about public health than the economy. Fifty-five per cent of Republicans took the opposite view."

Strange, since debating the costs/benefits of lockdown should be possible without dividing along partisan lines. Any analysis should be open to logical debate without it becoming a left/right issue.

 

I haven't seen anyone on here debating in those terms. We are talking about balance of risks and the risks to the economy now outweigh (in my view) the risks from the virus.

The sensible thing to do is to isolate care homes as far as possible, alert all those who are vulnerable (as far as we know) from the virus and then to allow the majority to get on with doing whatever they do to earn a crust of bread.

Reading between the lines it seems that it's not for example type 2 diabetics or the obese who are advocating what should be happening to them. There is no doubt some fairly trivial remarks from those who possibly aren't in the classes being advocated for voluntary euthanasia !

The gov't guidelines for opening primary schools are online here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preparing-for-the-wider-opening-of-schools-from-1-june/planning-guide-for-primary-schools

Nothing for secondaries yet!

 

It shows that intelligent and analytical people like you can't be sure if they've had it or not. I have long suspected that most who say they "had it in January or February" are wrong and in many cases guilty of wishful thinking.  Your result reinforces my belief. 

I hope I'm not in that category. I have never believed I have had it but I certainly could never understand why there was no interest in a crippling coughing virus that spread throughout my area and had everybody talking about it before they had heard of Corona virus. I suspect there was another "unique", possibly corona type, virus kicking around up to and after Christmas. Maybe a sign of the times ahead. We have no right to assume these things have to come along one at a time and have to have the same symptoms.