But why?
Do a lockdown now, there are just a few thousands of infected people, so it is easier to manage. Do a lockdown in 2-3 weeks and there are hundreds of thousands of infected people, so much more difficult to manage the spread.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Do a lockdown now, there are just a few thousands of infected people, so it is easier to manage. Do a lockdown in 2-3 weeks and there are hundreds of thousands of infected people, so much more difficult to manage the spread.
Fair enough. I guess we'll see long term.
Because all the top medical experts were slating them.
As someone said you can change your mind quickly but Jesus, after one day? Doesn't exactly inspire confidence of a well thought out plan. Maybe influenced by Trump finally admitting it is a state of emergency or are they just abandoning the herd immunity thing?
This
and
On banning public events this government is not just behind other counties but the private sector, when the premier league has a better plan in place than the British government you know we are in the shits. Again this is a massive change of policy within 24 hours.
When the UK finally does a lockdown, it'll be fine for about a week. Then people will gradually start breaking curfew and getting up to no good in the absence of police on the streets. By about week 4, things will be barely holding together.
Now, what if the lockdown doesn't fully work? We might wipe out what little covid-19 exists up until that point, but the moment the lockdown is lifted it would pick up again because we went too early like they have in Seoul.
The chances of a second lockdown holding will be slim.
This is about social management as much as it is about virus management. We definitely have to have a lockdown. But the timing has to be right to flatten the curve's peak, not just it's start.
Yea well if you’re gonna go and bring facts into it...
The FA is the worst run organisation on the face of the planet
Government: hold my beer
This is why it's happened, I assume. Businesses responded with 'that's insane', ignored him, and took decisions themselves.
It wouldn't work at that point since the numbers were so low.
Are you honestly saying that banning mass gatherings was completely off the table for the government forever in perpetuity?
That statement was clearly made in the context of the situation at the time.
More like hold my TP roll.
Because..
What is exponential growth?
To calculate exponential growth, use the formula y(t) = a__ekt, where a is the value at the start, k is the rate of growth or decay, t is time and y(t) is the population's value at time t.
A positive second derivative. Also known as, increasing rate of change.
I've read this theory, and while there are some merits on it, I don't really agree with it. I mean, at the end of the day, you can force the people to stay at home. In fact, with the situation getting worse, people will prefer staying at home. And well, put the lockdown now, you can still limit the spread. When hundreds of thousands are going to get infected (likely by the end of the month, or beginning of April), what will a lockdown achieve?
The peak is likely going to be reached around June, when tens of millions are projected to be infected. What would a lockdown achieve at that stage? Die at home, I guess.
Anyway, the fact that they are starting to do a U-turn 1 day after, it doesn't really inspire confidence, right? But better to realize early that it was fecked up plan on the first place.
I think it's a mix of Trump's admission and all the football cancellations, this government haven't got a clue they are clearly just winging it and hoping it goes away to then come out and say "we did it"
Is a good part of social management going against every other government and then turning that around the next day?
I'm saying you don't say banning mass gatherings wouldn't work, if you think you may need to leak that you're about to ban mass gatherings a day later.
To do so, is to change strategy 180. In a 'U' shaped fashion.
Why will there be a lack of police on the streets they will need to still be patrolling.
Maybe just maybe someone like Boris Johnston isn't that great at organising things.
Pretty much.
That is wrong, right? Not all functions with a second positive derivative are exponential functions.
If numbers are so important, why have they
a) stopped testing anyone who isn't actually in hospital with symptoms, and
b) told anyone at home with symptoms they don't even need to know you are ill and not report it.
There really is no need for this desperate defence. They've done the right thing in actually starting to do something but it's as clear a u-turn as you can get.
This wasn't about a plan laid out they responded to accusations over the last few days by doing interviews to defend the position and say the science said it wasn't necessary. If you think they did that waiting for another 100 odd people to be infected first then thats really naive.
Boris is an odd fellow but I must say he steams a good public health policy.
I don't entirely understand 'we applaud this decision to allow huge amounts of our readership to die', to be honest.
It feels bad for business.
When are the government expected to tell people to work from home where possible? We feel we should've done it this week but they have prepared us for it now at least.
There mouthpieces on the TV today were saying that it was too early to ban mass gatherings then a couple of hours later they change their minds? Today's figures were already out so there was no change in data.
The situation at the time ? It was mere hours before the majority of the premier League tested positive.
I can't believe you've got me fecking defending Boris Johnson.
Anyway, he said this on Tuesday:
“There’s no question that this is going to become a significant, a much more significant outbreak than it currently is — that’s obvious to everyone — but it is vital that we take the steps that we think are necessary at the right time and we follow the science,” he said.
The steps at each stage are going to necessarily be different. We've progressed from one stage to the next, and therefore the policy has changed accordingly.
When we eventually get a full lockdown, that won't be a u-turn either.
I think that's all true. Which is why it's an insane plan.
It's boring, people have their own agenda. In large I don't think there's any point discussing.
I thought similar when I saw wolverine's earlier post delineating the current measures.
Which sounds like a reasonable trigger point for postponing the season. It took the same amount of time in Italy after that Juve player tested positive.
I wouldn't call telling people to carry on as normal but wash your hands whilst hoping for the best a very refined way of going about all this to be honest.
And that just demonstrates how quickly a situation can change and how difficult it is to make any decision.
I don't know why you're doing it either, mate. You're picking a really odd one to to argue against the obvious over.
Hoping they strong arm the majority of the larger London employers to support WFH pronto. There's a clear need to reduce the traffic into and out of London.
Boris Johnson's a cnut. I wouldn't put much stock into what he says. I'm concentrating more on the rationale behind the overall plan, rather than the waffle used to communicate it.
We're not arguing that Boris Johnson swore to his nearest and dearest yesterday that under no circumstances would he ever shut down mass gatherings. We're arguing it's an embarrassing u-turn to state that it wouldn't work and a day later leak that it's now the policy.