How much are we being told lies about!!

[AVB]

2 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

The difference is we are already here, they are not. I thought that would be obvious. We can't bring the virus here, they can.

What is the point of us being in a partial lockdown, when we are potentially importing the vius with repatriated citizens. Without testing or quarantine how would we know.

We might as well all just go about our normal lives.

But it’s amongst us now. Millions of us have it or have had it. The people coming in will have to follow the same rules as the rest of us. 

[Newbie to this]

11 minutes ago, AVB said:

But it’s amongst us now. Millions of us have it or have had it. The people coming in will have to follow the same rules as the rest of us. 

Yes and we have been in an initial 3 weeks partial lockdown. All of that is for absolutely nothing if repatriated citizens are not tested or quarantined!

Let me be clear, I'm not saying they shouldn't be repatriated. 100% they should be, they are UK citizens, they are the UK's responsibility.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Newbie to this

[lancer425]

3 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

The difference is we are already here, they are not. I thought that would be obvious. We can't bring the virus here, they can.

What is the point of us being in a partial lockdown, when we are potentially importing the vius with repatriated citizens. Without testing or quarantine how would we know.

We might as well all just go about our normal lives.

I agree with some of your points but i don’t think this is right. In fact i think this next three days non compliance will  Bring about more restrictive lock down rules.  And to be fair people are just doing what they like. Two motorcycles blatting about around here tonight both members of the same family living in the same house getting essential supplies for granny and the other for Home no doubt.

 

 

[Newbie to this]

3 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

I agree with some of your points but i don’t think this is right. In fact i think this next three days non compliance will  Bring about more restrictive lock down rules.  And to be fair people are just doing what they like. Two motorcycles blatting about around here tonight both members of the same family living in the same house getting essential supplies for granny and the other for Home no doubt.

 

 

I'm not saying we should go about our normal lives. I'm saying with the repatriated citizens not being tested or quarantined, then the partial lockdown is for nothing, and we might as well have just carried on as normal.

Why are we trying to curtail the virus when potential 1000s of people are still bringing it in!

Edited April 10, 2020 by Newbie to this

[AVB]

12 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I'm not saying we should go about our normal lives. I'm saying with the repatriated citizens not being tested or quarantined, then the partial lockdown is for nothing, and we might as well have just carried on as normal.

Why are we trying to curtail the virus when potential 1000s of people are still bringing it in!

Let’s say 5 million of us have it now (a number quoted by some of the academics) and all 5,000 travellers have it (which they won’t have). That makes 5,005,000. Not a massive difference is it? 

The extra 5,000 will be following the same rules as everybody else. 

 

[Newbie to this]

5 minutes ago, AVB said:

Let’s say 5 million of us have it now (a number quoted by some of the academics) and all 5,000 travellers have it (which they won’t have). That makes 5,005,000. Not a massive difference is it? 

The extra 5,000 will be following the same rules as everybody else. 

 

That makes it OK then

[lancer425]

4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I'm not saying we should go about our normal lives. I'm saying with the repatriated citizens not being tested or quarantined, then the partial lockdown is for nothing, and we might as well have just carried on as normal.

Why are we trying to curtail the virus when potential 1000s of people are still bringing it in!

Yes i realised that, and i should have made it clearer, But i think its still doing some good, and that’s despite the clear non compliance we are better with the lock-down as is far better than going about our business .

  I do get the frustration though, and we really do need to all try harder, it would be even better if those that are simply not trying to comply at all did.

I hope i am so wrong  but i have an idea  on tuesday morning we will all be here talking  the next three days of the  Law breaking idiots either being caught or filmed being reckless with their own and the nations safety.

On a scale of 1 to 10 & 10 being everybody behaved as asked by the government to the letter.

Where do you think we will be score wise come Tuesday morning.

If we get a 5 i will be very suprised, i am so lacking in confidence in too many in our societey  to get this right. What say you. ? .  Ill give them a 4.

.

[AVB]

43 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

That makes it OK then

Just the simple reality that the perceived benefit of testing and quarantining that number of people isn’t worth the effort. 

46 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

Yes i realised that, and i should have made it clearer, But i think its still doing some good, and that’s despite the clear non compliance we are better with the lock-down as is far better than going about our business .

  I do get the frustration though, and we really do need to all try harder, it would be even better if those that are simply not trying to comply at all did.

I hope i am so wrong  but i have an idea  on tuesday morning we will all be here talking  the next three days of the  Law breaking idiots either being caught or filmed being reckless with their own and the nations safety.

On a scale of 1 to 10 & 10 being everybody behaved as asked by the government to the letter.

Where do you think we will be score wise come Tuesday morning.

If we get a 5 i will be very suprised, i am so lacking in confidence in too many in our societey  to get this right. What say you. ? .  Ill give them a 4.

.

The number of people complying far outweighs those that aren’t and the government admitted that more people are complying that they anticipated. 

On your scale I think we are 9. 

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

I'm not saying we should go about our normal lives. I'm saying with the repatriated citizens not being tested or quarantined, then the partial lockdown is for nothing, and we might as well have just carried on as normal.

Why are we trying to curtail the virus when potential 1000s of people are still bringing it in!

I know where you are coming from, but it's far too late for any restrictions to make a difference, the sheer amount of people who have already come and gone in the last say 6 weeks would make a mockery of quarantining them for 2 weeks.

We are in lockdown to slow the spread and stop the NHS being inundated, and to shield vulnerable people. 

I would like to see a serious clamp down on those obviously flouting the lockdown,  it would make those of us doing our bit by staying home feel much better.

[millrace]

Theres a virologist from I think Belgium who when offered the chance to return home said no and volunteered to stay in belfast helping out,,tonight she was saying that 1 person can indirectly infect 600 others,,, so let's follow this through of the arrivals over the next week, say 2000 carry the virus with no symptoms as yet,,this gives potentially an infection rate to 1.2000000 people yes 1.2 million others ,,,I know that's all worse case so let's say half that which then pass it on to say half again....that's still circa 900,000....

So yea absolutely not worth stopping or quarantine those initially travelling!!!

Edited April 10, 2020 by millrace

[Raja Clavata]

10 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

And the ones who aren't showing symptoms but are carriers?

What type is that then???

We are not in partial quarantine! Far from it

The type I was referring to is banging the immigration drum at every opportunity.

Oowee already addressed the other points. You appear to be basing your argument on what ifs and supposition, unquantifiable probability at best, how do you know that they aren't in fact more likely to be infected by people they come into contact already in the UK.

I'd suggest that the small percentage of the 60+ million people here who are not following government guidelines on social distancing, stretching the rules on outdoor exercise, shopping etc. are much more of an issue. 

[Raja Clavata]

8 hours ago, millrace said:

Theres a virologist from I think Belgium who when offered the chance to return home said no and volunteered to stay in belfast helping out,,tonight she was saying that 1 person can indirectly infect 600 others,,, so let's follow this through of the arrivals over the next week, say 2000 carry the virus with no symptoms as yet,,this gives potentially an infection rate to 1.2000000 people yes 1.2 million others ,,,I know that's all worse case so let's say half that which then pass it on to say half again....that's still circa 900,000....

So yea absolutely not worth stopping or quarantine those initially travelling!!!

Where do you get 2000 from? There are ~1.7M confirmed cases globally - that's ~0.02% of the global population. On that basis, ignoring other unquantifiable factors about one in 5000 of those returning are infected (and some of them would have, by definition, recovered) so to get to 2000 carrying the virus you are looking at ~10M repatriations.

Seriously man!

[Newbie to this]

24 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

The type I was referring to is banging the immigration drum at every opportunity.

Oowee already addressed the other points. You appear to be basing your argument on what ifs and supposition, unquantifiable probability at best, how do you know that they aren't in fact more likely to be infected by people they come into contact already in the UK.

I'd suggest that the small percentage of the 60+ million people here who are not following government guidelines on social distancing, stretching the rules on outdoor exercise, shopping etc. are much more of an issue. 

Just so you know, I'm a descendant of immigrants. If it wasn't for immigration, I wouldn’t be here.

I wasn't knocking immigration, mearly pointing out that, as repatriation is a basic human right, perhaps in these troubled times we should be putting our own first, and start repatriating others. I know the shock horror of it, putting the British first, how dare I suggest such a thing!

Everything is whats, ifs and supposition at the moment!

The people you mention who are not social distancing are already here and hard to police, the people they are repatriating are in a controlled environment, that is until we just let them roam off to wherever, without knowing if they have the virus, two completely different things and not comparable.

[Raja Clavata]

11 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Maybe all the other non banana republic governments, can repatriate their citizens that are in the UK, to ease our burdens here.

The "type" retort was based on this comment.

Whilst there is supposition, probability and statistics involved, it helps if you start from a reasonable baseline and follow logic and rationale in putting forward a scenario or conclusion.

Do you agree or disagree with the numbers I outlined above?

1 minute ago, Newbie to this said:

The people you mention who are not social distancing are already here and hard to police, the people they are repatriating are in a controlled environment, that is until we just let them roam off to wherever, without knowing if they have the virus, two completely different things and not comparable.

I don't agree. This is all about getting out of the current lockdown and economic hole we are in - whilst different "things" they both contribute to the rate of spread of infection. The maths suggests the focus shouldn't really be on the repatriations.

By all means put forward an alternative set of baseline numbers and math to support your argument / bias?

[Newbie to this]

41 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

12 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Maybe all the other non banana republic governments, can repatriate their citizens that are in the UK, to ease our burdens here.

The "type" retort was based on this comment.

My comment you quoted was in response to yours below, especially the obligation bit.

12 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

Repatriation is a basic human right and obligation for anything other than a banana republic government!

 

41 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I don't agree. This is all about getting out of the current lockdown and economic hole we are in - whilst different "things" they both contribute to the rate of spread of infection.

One is wholly controllable, the other isn't. Why are you so against testing or quarantining possible new spreaders of the virus! Repatriations are in a controlled environment, only we can let them become spreaders, it's fully in our government's control, it's not, once they let them roam free to potentially go and spread the virus.

2 weeks in quarantine is a smal price to pay. Testing would be the ideal scenario, but I don’t think we are able to do that yet, consindering we can't fully test front line NHS workers.

Numbers don't come in to it in my opinion, if one person is infected by a preventable spreader, then it is one too many. Why take the risk when they can be quarantined!!!

Edited April 11, 2020 by Newbie to this

[Raja Clavata]

I'm very pro testing! It's the one area I think the govt could have done much better in and it's one area that we are way behind where we could / should be.

The numbers suggest that any additional testing capacity would be better directed elsewhere, like establishing local hotspots of infection and bringing in special measures.

10 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Numbers don't come in to it in my opinion, if one person is infected by a preventable respreader, then it is one too many. Why take the risk when they can be quarantined!!!

I'm sorry but this is science, in the early phases of any episode, getting our heads around the numbers is pretty much everything as the figures are all we have. Numbers are what changed the initial govt plan from one of herd immunity to isolation and partial lockdown, modelling the initial approach (using numbers!) projected 250,000 deaths - the model with the new approach predicts 20,000. Thank <insert your deity name here> someone cares about the numbers!

In an imperfect world with finite resources against an invisible and largely unknown opponent we use numbers to increase the probability that where we do focus provides the best return. Otherwise it's down to gut feeling, rolling dice, biases and the like with a very high statistical probability of barking up the wrong tree.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Raja Clavata

[oowee]

We need testing sure but lets start with sufficient PPE and oxygen.

How can we have restricted access to oxygen for gods sake. I am not talking about the high rise hospitals where the volume is restricted by the pipes its the hospitals where there is just not enough gas in the tank. 

PPE, have you seen the face pressure sores on the icu staff? 

Still not enough ventilators. Over 75 forget it. 

[Newbie to this]

12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I'm very pro testing! It's the one area I think the govt could have done much better in and it's one area that we are way behind where we could / should be.

Good for you, I did mention testing probably wasn't feasible as we can't even test front line NHS workers

 

12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

The numbers suggest that any additional testing capacity would be better directed elsewhere, like establishing local hotspots of infection and bringing in special measures.

Completely agree, so we should quarantine repatriations until we are certain they don't have the virus. Why take the risk of not doing so!

12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I'm sorry but this is science, in the early phases of any episode, getting our heads around the numbers is pretty much everything as the figures are all we have. Numbers are what changed the initial govt plan from one of herd immunity to isolation and partial lockdown, modelling the initial approach (using numbers!) projected 250,000 deaths - the model with the new approach predicts 20,000. Thank <insert your deity name here> someone cares about the numbers!

In an imperfect world with finite resources against an invisible and largely unknown opponent we use numbers to increase the probability that where we do focus provides the best return. Otherwise it's down to gut feeling, rolling dice, biases and the like with a very high statistical probability of barking up the wrong tree.

Did you read my comment, I'm not interested in the numbers in relation to repatriations. Them becoming spreaders is completely under our control. If one person becomes infected from a preventable spreader, then it is totally unacceptable.

Yes these people may go on after quarantine and become a spreader but that is not a controllable scenario, their repatriation and becoming a spreader is! 

Again why take the risk when we can quarantine them for 2 weeks and be sure they are not carriers! 

It's just not worth the risk!!!

Edited April 11, 2020 by Newbie to this

[Raja Clavata]

Think it through, quarantine like you describe hasn't worked well on cruise ships, there is an increased risk in putting people in the same facility and very difficult and expensive (costs and man hours) to administer effectively. Care homes and hospitals are other examples - the last place you want to be at the moment if you are otherwise healthy.

Advising these people to self isolate at home is about as good as you can hope for.

Again, refer back to the numbers and manage risk accordingly. Risk mitigations themselves present additional risks as I have described above.

[millrace]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

Where do you get 2000 from? There are ~1.7M confirmed cases globally - that's ~0.02% of the global population. On that basis, ignoring other unquantifiable factors about one in 5000 of those returning are infected (and some of them would have, by definition, recovered) so to get to 2000 carrying the virus you are looking at ~10M repatriations.

Seriously man!

And your basing this on how many tests,,,,,,we dont know how many have it or had it,,,  seriously man!!!!!!.....your quoting tested cases not actual cases because we dont know this figure,,,my point is continuing to let people in without some form of check is making what we are doing less effective!!....it really is this simple!!

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, millrace said:

And your basing this on how many tests,,,,,,we dont know how many have it or had it,,,  seriously man!!!!!!.....your quoting tested cases not actual cases because we dont know this figure,,,my point is continuing to let people in without some form of check is making what we are doing less effective!!....it really is this simple!!

The tests vary by country, as I assume you are aware. I am starting from a known position, you're just taking numbers randomly out of thin air. If you want to discuss the multiplier from confirmed infected to total infected then I'm open to that. If not, then please read the discussion between Ntt and I, if you still don't get it then have a nice day.

18 minutes ago, oowee said:

We need testing sure but lets start with sufficient PPE and oxygen.

How can we have restricted access to oxygen for gods sake. I am not talking about the high rise hospitals where the volume is restricted by the pipes its the hospitals where there is just not enough gas in the tank. 

PPE, have you seen the face pressure sores on the icu staff? 

Still not enough ventilators. Over 75 forget it. 

Two, actually three, very important points!

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

Think it through, quarantine like you describe hasn't worked well on cruise ships, there is an increased risk in putting people in the same facility and very difficult and expensive (costs and man hours) to administer effectively. Care homes and hospitals are other examples - the last place you want to be at the moment if you are otherwise healthy.

Advising these people to self isolate at home is about as good as you can hope for.

Again, refer back to the numbers and manage risk accordingly. Risk mitigations themselves present additional risks as I have described above.

So why can't they be in isolation whilst in quarantine?

And the last place you want someone who has been repatriated and a carrier but showing no symptoms, is on crowded public transport or out stocking their empty fridge freezer. Especially when this risk is 100% controllable!

The best we can hope for is to test repatriated citizens before they are allowed to go, but as this is not going to happen the second best we can hope is quarantine, like we did with the repatriations from Wuhan. Let's be 100% certain we are not allowing potential spreaders out to infect people. We can fully enforce social distancing whilst they are in quarantine. If they are just allowed to go, then we can not control anything.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Newbie to this

[wyn]

On 08/04/2020 at 17:53, Newbie to this said:

From what I have heard from a grave digging friend, she may be right with the numbers being disproportionate. Seems most of the graves his team have been digging lately are for Muslim funerals. There is apparently talk of digging mass graves now (10 to a grave) the numbers are getting so big the morgues cant cope.

They think it is down to a lot still going to the Mosques and not social distancing.

But to claim it is racism is just utter tripe

Undrelying conditions might play a part in it.                  British Heart Foundation

Edited April 11, 2020 by wyn

[Raja Clavata]

4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

So why can't they be in isolation whilst in quarantine?

And the last place you want someone who has been repatriated and a carrier but showing no symptoms, is on crowded public transport or out stocking their empty fridge freezer. Especially when this risk is 100% controllable!

The best we can hope for is to test repatriated citizens before they are allowed to go, but as this is not going to happen the second best we can hope is quarantine, like we did with the repatriations from Wuhan. Let's be 100% certain we are not allowing potential  spreaders out to infect people. We can fully enforce social distancing whilst they are in quarantine. If they are just allowed to go, then we can not control anything.

They could be and possibly would be if the data suggested it was worth the effort, the fact they are not reinforces the conclusion I drew from the numbers I provided.

Regarding your point on public transport, what percentage used public transport, their own vehicles left at the airport, taxis or were met by relatives with whom they will be living with?

Also what percentage are returning to an empty household, ordering groceries online for delivery or returning home to houses already occupied and therefore stocked?

Again, I'm sorry but the risk is far from being 100% controllable - you're either interested in the numbers or you are not - if not as you state why quote 100%, which is wrong anyway?

Whilst I get your point about one additional infection being unacceptable - we do not live in a perfect world so it's all about biggest bang for your buck...

 

[Newbie to this]

8 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

They could be and possibly would be if the data suggested it was worth the effort, the fact they are not reinforces the conclusion I drew from the numbers I provided.

Regarding your point on public transport, what percentage used public transport, their own vehicles left at the airport, taxis or were met by relatives with whom they will be living with?

Also what percentage are returning to an empty household, ordering groceries online for delivery or returning home to houses already occupied and therefore stocked?

Again, I'm sorry but the risk is far from being 100% controllable - you're either interested in the numbers or you are not - if not as you state why quote 100%, which is wrong anyway?

 

How is 100% wrong, if these repatriated citizens are put into quarantine until 100% proven they do not have the virus, then 100% the risk is controlled. They cannot infect people if they do not have the virus.

Once released the risk becomes the same as anyone else out, but it is not increased. It is however increased if you just let them go as they are not showing symptoms.

And again it doesn't matter in any of you hypothetical scenarios as in other hypothetical scenarios just one of these repatriated citizens gets on a packed tube and infects 100s, who go on to infect 100s more.

This is unacceptable when the risk repatriated citizens pose is controllable.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Newbie to this