Crowd test events

[Angelo's Ashes]

36 minutes ago, RAG said:

Only an estimated 6-7% of UK population have had it, any researchers interviewed on the Oxford trial I've seen have said it might give at best, a couple of years immunity.  IMO from what I've read, any vaccine will 'wear off' before we get anything near 60% being infected - which could take 7-8 -9 years, going on the 2020 outbreak.  Virus is also likely to mutate, like the (sometimes) coronavirus based, seasonal common cold, they can't give you a jab for - cos it's mutated since the jab was developed.  Best avoid.  Is bad.

All true. From what I've read, to spread it through the UK population and accept the inevitable deaths would take 12 months if staying within health service capacity. 

We're in the worst of both worlds presently, with the virus doubling every 7-10 days, no economic recovery possible whilst there is exponential spread and no long term immunity on the horizon.  All because of a virus that doesn't kill children or people of working age. 

Introducing a disrupter into the highly regulated ecosystem of western economies creates havoc. We saw it with over leveraged banks and we're now seeing it with COVID-19 and climate change. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Angelo's Ashes

[RAG]

5 minutes ago, Angelo's Ashes said:

We're in the worst of both worlds presently, with the virus doubling every 7-10 days, no economic recovery possible and no long term immunity on the horizon.  

Heard a lot of people comparing the Covid pandemic to world wars.  Yet to hear anyone talk about a Covid Economy, like economies have to be altered to War Economy status when required.  Economic recovery is totally possible, if the gov. set aside their Thatcherite principles.

[Angelo's Ashes]

6 minutes ago, RAG said:

Heard a lot of people comparing the Covid pandemic to world wars.  Yet to hear anyone talk about a Covid Economy, like economies have to be altered to War Economy status when required.  Economic recovery is totally possible, if the gov. set aside their Thatcherite principles.

Sorry- I meant that there was no economic recovery possible whilst there is an exponential rise in viral cases.

Economic recovery is completely possible with suppression and once this is over. And it will be over, probably within two years. 

Talk about "moonshots" and spectators returning to sporting events should be put to one side though. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Angelo's Ashes

[Richaway]

11 hours ago, Beaker71 said:

Far too simplistic a statement, circumstances and knowledge made the decision at the time seem sensible.
 

Hindsight and lack of consideration of the former make the decision appear to be wrong.

lets Make sure we look at the decision in the round and not let loudmouth arseholes just shoot their gobs off 

Here you go. a simple search brings up the Sunday post and bbc articles to prove my point.

At least 37 patients were transferred from Scottish hospitals to care homes after testing positive for coronavirus.

Official figures previously revealed 1,431 untested patients were moved between 1 March and 21 April, before pre-discharge testing became mandatory. 

An investigation by the Sunday Post found at least 300 people were tested during that time.

[Squirrelhumper]

13 hours ago, Lions13 said:

Reasonable point, butSweden has twice the population of Scotland, and has had more than 3 times the amount of deaths.

Sweden has also not seen the surge in cases which we have seen of late.

[Angelo's Ashes]

4 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Sweden has also not seen the surge in cases which we have seen of late.

It's inevitable that they will though. 

Do you remember back in April when people were wondering why India hadn't had an outbreak?

[Squirrelhumper]

11 hours ago, Mogwai said:

Whenever  this debate rears up, I'm always struck by folk willing to talk about the most vulnerable people in our society in terms of survival of the fittest i.e. they should stay indoors for their own safety and let the rest of us get on with it - that kind of thing.

Yet the same folk seem completely unwilling to invoke survival of the fittest when it comes to businesses.

 

 

Don't really think you can compare the two.

Folk shielding makes sense and 1) they are safer and 2) it helps open up the economy.

We are now looking at full industries closing down, f**k all to do with which ones are fittest.

Theatres, Soft Play venues, Nightclubs - all have been closed and starved of income since March and Furlough ending next month which no chance of them opening up again. That's 100,000's of jobs, that's 100,000's of families about to live on job seekers allowances with no jobs available and zero chance of any appearing soon.

Are patients with Cancer, heart issues etc not as important anymore, as they have been put on the back burner waiting on this second wave which might never happen. How long can that go on as cancer actually kills more folk in Scotland each year than COVID will?

Edited September 11, 2020 by Squirrelhumper

[Squirrelhumper]

9 hours ago, Angelo's Ashes said:

 

The problem is that the "learning to live with it" approach seems to have a greater economic impact overall. 

Suppression of the viral to low community transmission levels, followed by an effective contact tracing regime, is the gold standard approach. 

The problem (and what many countries are now discovering) is that public health infrastructure can't be developed in a few months. It takes several years. 

 

 

 

So Sweden is faring better than the UK in terms of excess deaths and also economically?

[Squirrelhumper]

7 minutes ago, Angelo's Ashes said:

It's inevitable that they will though. 

Do you remember back in April when people were wondering why India hadn't had an outbreak?

Inevitable? They've nowhere near the restrictions we have and haven't seen the cases surge? Has the virus just taken a wee holiday over there?

I'm not advocating the approach they are taking as being the best or one I'd even want us to take fully but we are currently, yet again heading towards a complete f**k up in the UK. 

 

[Richaway]

28 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Don't really think you can compare the two.

Folk shielding makes sense and 1) they are safer and 2) it helps open up the economy.

We are now looking at full industries closing down, f**k all to do with which ones are fittest.

Theatres, Soft Play venues, Nightclubs - all have been closed and starved of income since March and Furlough ending next month which no chance of them opening up again. That's 100,000's of jobs, that's 100,000's of families about to live on job seekers allowances with no jobs available and zero chance of any appearing soon.

Are patients with Cancer, heart issues etc not as important anymore, as they have been put on the back burner waiting on this second wave which might never happen. How long can that go on as cancer actually kills more folk in Scotland each year than COVID will?

Spot on

[Richaway]

20 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Inevitable? They've nowhere near the restrictions we have and haven't seen the cases surge? Has the virus just taken a wee holiday over there?

I'm not advocating the approach they are taking as being the best or one I'd even want us to take fully but we are currently, yet again heading towards a complete f**k up in the UK. 

 

According to experts there is  nothing inevitable nor completely predictable about a virus.

the one thing that is certain though is if the economy isn’t opened fully soon there will be horrific consequences as you say.

[Angelo's Ashes]

35 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Inevitable? They've nowhere near the restrictions we have and haven't seen the cases surge? Has the virus just taken a wee holiday over there?

I'm not advocating the approach they are taking as being the best or one I'd even want us to take fully but we are currently, yet again heading towards a complete f**k up in the UK. 

 

Viruses don't have holidays, which was kind of my point albeit indirectly. 

If there is coronavirus in a community it will spread eventually. This has been true everywhere in the world.

Sweden currently has cases of 200 a day. This will eventually increase at an exponential rate as it is not going to spontaneously disappear. 

[Squirrelhumper]

40 minutes ago, Angelo's Ashes said:

Viruses don't have holidays, which was kind of my point albeit indirectly. 

If there is coronavirus in a community it will spread eventually. This has been true everywhere in the world.

Sweden currently has cases of 200 a day. This will eventually increase at an exponential rate as it is not going to spontaneously disappear. 

So how come Sweden are seeing fairly low levels just now, despite never having anything like the lockdown we had?

So how long do you pause folk lives for, how long do you sacrifice folks livlihoods for?

I'm not talking about going to the football or anything remotely like that as I'm not overly bothered about that - I mean how long can we continue these measures without having an effect on the economy, employment etc for generations to come?

Soon we're going to start seeing full households out of work and no chance of redeployment due to the restrictions in place - that's going to wreck havoc with folks health, both mental and physical. Imagine trying to keep a house with two parents on job seekers allowance? Well that's going to be the case across the country come November and worse.

I'm not saying going back to how we lived life back in Feb, I'm all for wearing masks, social distancing where appropriate but I think we are in a grave danger of prioritising COVID and the potential dangers ahead of very real dangers that we know are going to be the direct result of lockdowns.

Has to be a middle ground and I don't think we're anywhere near it.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Squirrelhumper

[Skora11]

19 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

So how come Sweden are seeing fairly low levels just now, despite never having anything like the lockdown we had?

So how long do you pause folk lives for, how long do you sacrifice folks livlihoods for?

I'm not talking about going to the football or anything remotely like that as I'm not overly bothered about that - I mean how long can we continue these measures without having an effect on the economy, employment etc for generations to come?

Soon we're going to start seeing full households out of work and no chance of redeployment due to the restrictions in place - that's going to wreck havoc with folks health, both mental and physical. Imagine trying to keep a house with two parents on job seekers allowance? Well that's going to be the case across the country come November and worse.

I'm not saying going back to how we lived life back in Feb, I'm all for wearing masks, social distancing where appropriate but I think we are in a grave danger of prioritising COVID and the potential dangers ahead of very real dangers that we know are going to be the direct result of lockdowns.

Has to be a middle ground and I don't think we're anywhere near it.

Sweden has on average 25 people per square kilometre while the UK has 275 people per square kilometre. Which would indicate it is much easier for the virus to spread in the UK than in Sweden. Of course there will be densely populated areas of Sweden such as Stockholm, Gotenberg, Malmo etc but these will still be less dense than the large cities of the UK.

There will also be more people flying in to the UK from around the world than to Sweden so more likely to bring the virus here. These would just be two factors why Sweden might be experiencing lower levels rather than the UK. 

[Bonbon19]

The Swedish model is interesting in that they don’t make masks mandatory even in shops and restaurants. There’s an argument that this could have contributed to their excess deaths wrt other Scandinavian countries? However there’s no doubt that the economy and the welfare and mental health of that nation hasn’t suffered anything like the rest of Europe and “ordinary “ medicine delivery  has only been minimally affected 

Neil Ferguson’s modelling was initially going to follow Tegnells but collectively the governments and the MSM sh4t out of it even although his figures of 500k dead  were flawed . 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Bonbon19

[Squirrelhumper]

27 minutes ago, Skora11 said:

Sweden has on average 25 people per square kilometre while the UK has 275 people per square kilometre. Which would indicate it is much easier for the virus to spread in the UK than in Sweden. Of course there will be densely populated areas of Sweden such as Stockholm, Gotenberg, Malmo etc but these will still be less dense than the large cities of the UK.

There will also be more people flying in to the UK from around the world than to Sweden so more likely to bring the virus here. These would just be two factors why Sweden might be experiencing lower levels rather than the UK. 

What's the average in Scotland compared to Sweden?

Vast majority of these travelling into the UK are in London.

[Lorielus]

20 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

What's the average in Scotland compared to Sweden?

Vast majority of these travelling into the UK are in London.

Scotland still has a population density >3x Sweden at 67/km2.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density?minPopulationFilter=1000000&year=latest&time=2020-09-10&country=NLD~NOR~ROU~RUS~HRV~CZE~DNK~EST~FIN~ESP~SWE~CHE~AUT~BLR~BEL~GBR~FRA~DEU~GRC~IRL~ITA~LTU~MKD~LVA~PRT~POL~UKR~HUN~SVN~BIH~SRB~SVK~MDA~BGR~ALB~CYP~OWID_KOS

That graph/table gives covid deaths per million against population density - it's worth noting that their deaths per million is almost identical to the UK's, in spite of that comparatively tiny population density - that underlines how badly the Swedish approach has worked, especially given the poor application of lockdown procedures in the UK.

It's also worth noting that country will similar population densities that did have real lockdown procedures like Norway. Finland, Latvia, Estonia, etc all have incredibly low deaths per million in comparison.

Other factors are at work of course, but it's pretty inarguable that Sweden's approach has been among the worst in Europe, and as Angelo showed above, did little to negate the economic impact.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Lorielus

[skygod]

This thread long ago ceased to have anything to do with football, let alone Killie. 

[Lorielus]

3 minutes ago, skygod said:

This thread long ago ceased to have anything to do with football, let alone Killie. 

It is to a degree - the test events aren't so much to do with raw numbers in the crowds as the logisticis (and plausibility) of crowd management to minimise potential infection vectors.  It's not so much "let 1000 people in and see how many get infected", it's more like a fire drill - detemining the best way to direct, seat, police and trace crowds in the context of the pandemic, which is the same issue with re-opening any industry at the moment over the UK.  There isn't a simple answer because the requirements are unprecedented in the modern era.

And it's doubly difficult with football crowds, given they're not exactly known for their sobriety and willingness to be compliant.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Lorielus

[Squirrelhumper]

17 minutes ago, Lorielus said:

Scotland still has a population density >3x Sweden at 67/km2.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-death-rate-vs-population-density?minPopulationFilter=1000000&year=latest&time=2020-09-10&country=NLD~NOR~ROU~RUS~HRV~CZE~DNK~EST~FIN~ESP~SWE~CHE~AUT~BLR~BEL~GBR~FRA~DEU~GRC~IRL~ITA~LTU~MKD~LVA~PRT~POL~UKR~HUN~SVN~BIH~SRB~SVK~MDA~BGR~ALB~CYP~OWID_KOS

That graph/table gives covid deaths per million against population density - it's worth noting that their deaths per million is almost identical to the UK's, in spite of that comparatively tiny population density - that underlines how badly the Swedish approach has worked, especially given the poor application of lockdown procedures in the UK.

It's also worth noting that country will similar population densities that did have real lockdown procedures like Norway. Finland, Latvia, Estonia, etc all have incredibly low deaths per million in comparison.

Other factors are at work of course, but it's pretty inarguable that Sweden's approach has been among the worst in Europe, and as Angelo showed above, did little to negate the economic impact.

Listen I'm not saying Sweden is the route to take in isolation, however what nobody can argue against is the fact that the approach the UK has taken is one of the worlds worst in terms of death rates and also a disaster economically.

If they are going to close down industries en masse for a year then at least support them but no we do away with furlough with no idea how to support the economic disaster that will follow.

 

[Angelo's Ashes]

2 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

So how come Sweden are seeing fairly low levels just now, despite never having anything like the lockdown we had?

So how long do you pause folk lives for, how long do you sacrifice folks livlihoods for?

I'm not talking about going to the football or anything remotely like that as I'm not overly bothered about that - I mean how long can we continue these measures without having an effect on the economy, employment etc for generations to come?

Soon we're going to start seeing full households out of work and no chance of redeployment due to the restrictions in place - that's going to wreck havoc with folks health, both mental and physical. Imagine trying to keep a house with two parents on job seekers allowance? Well that's going to be the case across the country come November and worse.

I'm not saying going back to how we lived life back in Feb, I'm all for wearing masks, social distancing where appropriate but I think we are in a grave danger of prioritising COVID and the potential dangers ahead of very real dangers that we know are going to be the direct result of lockdowns.

Has to be a middle ground and I don't think we're anywhere near it.

I agree with most of this. I

I would wait for a few more weeks before making any conclusions about Sweden though. 

I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm glad I'm not making the decisions as it's far from straightforward. 

Based on what we know so far, elimination and a return to business as usual seems to be a better approach than whatever it is that the UK is currently aiming for. As I stated earlier, we seem to have the worst of both worlds. 

[pmonty3]

2 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

So how come Sweden are seeing fairly low levels just now, despite never having anything like the lockdown we had?

So how long do you pause folk lives for, how long do you sacrifice folks livlihoods for?

I'm not talking about going to the football or anything remotely like that as I'm not overly bothered about that - I mean how long can we continue these measures without having an effect on the economy, employment etc for generations to come?

Soon we're going to start seeing full households out of work and no chance of redeployment due to the restrictions in place - that's going to wreck havoc with folks health, both mental and physical. Imagine trying to keep a house with two parents on job seekers allowance? Well that's going to be the case across the country come November and worse.

I'm not saying going back to how we lived life back in Feb, I'm all for wearing masks, social distancing where appropriate but I think we are in a grave danger of prioritising COVID and the potential dangers ahead of very real dangers that we know are going to be the direct result of lockdowns.

Has to be a middle ground and I don't think we're anywhere near it.

Mate you are nailing it on this thread. 
 

No even close to a middle ground of proportionate response to this. Health seemed the priority in the spring which was right. But it’s not health led anymore. Way too flaky, inconsistent and reactionary.  Politics is playing havoc with folks lives on a whim.
 

We are being absolutely played here. 
 

Going to be extremely bleak when furlough ends and folk don’t even see it coming 

[Lorielus]

50 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Listen I'm not saying Sweden is the route to take in isolation, however what nobody can argue against is the fact that the approach the UK has taken is one of the worlds worst in terms of death rates and also a disaster economically.

If they are going to close down industries en masse for a year then at least support them but no we do away with furlough with no idea how to support the economic disaster that will follow.

 

Absolutely no argument from me there.

[RAG]

Bad news from covid test event in Durham..

A further 33 people have tested positive for coronavirus after attending a charity football match. 

The event at Burnside Working Men's Club (WMC), in Fencehouses on the border of Sunderland and Durham, took place on 30 August.

Durham County Council confirmed a further 33 people had tested positive bringing the total number of cases to 61.

About 300 people who attended are having to self-isolate for 14 days.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-54117729

 

[Wrangodog]

1 hour ago, RAG said:

Bad news from covid test event in Durham..

A further 33 people have tested positive for coronavirus after attending a charity football match. 

The event at Burnside Working Men's Club (WMC), in Fencehouses on the border of Sunderland and Durham, took place on 30 August.

Durham County Council confirmed a further 33 people had tested positive bringing the total number of cases to 61.

About 300 people who attended are having to self-isolate for 14 days.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-54117729

 

Test event ?  Sounded more like a charity game that they admitted afterwards didn't strictly follow social distancing guidelines. How many went to the Working men's club after the game ?