Why is this Virus Worse in Spain & Italy?

[Tuerto]

It does feel like this thread really jumped the gun with this question.

I meant 'At the time of writing, without allowing for all of the other factors involved, which was sort of the question and debate that i was hoping for, although it's happening now.

[Tuerto]

I thought I'd resurrect this thread in light of the fact that yesterday's UK deaths figure was higher than anything recorded by Italy and lower than the figure for Spain on just one day - it looks certain now that death and new cases rates are declining in those two countries, so it's unlikely that they will record higher figures in the future unless they come in a second wave of the virus.

There has to be a likelihood that the UK will go beyond that Spanish highest day soon, so perhaps the question should be why are our figures so bad? I started this with a desire not to get political about the COVID19 crisis in this country, but it's become a whole lot harder to do that when you see us on a par with those Mediterranean countries with no definite signs yet of rates plateauing here yet and worse off than most Northern European countries on the mainland.

The question now is did our government and scientists act quickly enough-take things seriously enough etc. I have massive concerns over Boris and his Churchillian attitude towards crisis and suffering, he seems to be stuck in a post colonial time warp where he pictures himself walking purposefully over the smouldering ruins of a bombing raid. This is different, empty rhetoric could cost lives.

[the other bob wilson]

The question now is did our government and scientists act quickly enough-take things seriously enough etc. I have massive concerns over Boris and his Churchillian attitude towards crisis and suffering, he seems to be stuck in a post colonial time warp where he pictures himself walking purposefully over the smouldering ruins of a bombing raid. This is different, empty rhetoric could cost lives.

Yes, I agree - I look at the hesitation with implementing the current lockdown and with things like the closing of pubs and think how many lives is that going to cost? I appreciate the scale of the task a new Government has had foisted upon them, but it strikes me that in the early days of this crisis, it was treated in the kind of way a financial crisis would be in that it was almost like an experiment in which some sort of pet theory could be proved or otherwise - we went against the prevailing view among many of our neighbours and it looks like we could pay for that.

[Tuerto]

Yes, I agree - I look at the hesitation with implementing the current lockdown and with things like the closing of pubs and think how many lives is that going to cost? I appreciate the scale of the task a new Government has had foisted upon them, but it strikes me that in the early days of this crisis, it was treated in the kind of way a financial crisis would be in that it was almost like an experiment in which some sort of pet theory could be proved or otherwise - we went against the prevailing view among many of our neighbours and it looks like we could pay for that.

I think that Raising his political ideologies is perfectly acceptable in this instance and i'd go as far as to say that johnson would've equated this Virus in the same way he would a financial crisis, that being to protect the interests of the few. Closing down business and massively disrupting commerce is at odds with his political beliefs, i don't think that he has much interest in the vulnerable, poor and sick who have no other option than to use stretched and cut to the bone service, afterall, he doesn't really have those peoples support and to him they're probably a drain on resources. He may have thought that it's quite likely that those at the bottom of the social ladder will suffer the most, what's new! I don't trust him to get anything right and in my opinion, everything implemented to eradicate this virus is at odds with his personal ideology.

[the other bob wilson]

I thought I'd resurrect this thread in light of the fact that yesterday's UK deaths figure was higher than anything recorded by Italy and lower than the figure for Spain on just one day - it looks certain now that death and new cases rates are declining in those two countries, so it's unlikely that they will record higher figures in the future unless they come in a second wave of the virus.

There has to be a likelihood that the UK will go beyond that Spanish highest day soon, so perhaps the question should be why are our figures so bad? I started this with a desire not to get political about the COVID19 crisis in this country, but it's become a whole lot harder to do that when you see us on a par with those Mediterranean countries with no definite signs yet of rates plateauing here yet and worse off than most Northern European countries on the mainland.

Just to say that I, wrongly, assumed that if Spain and Italy hadn't recorded a thousand plus deaths in a day, we could well become the first country besides the USA to do so, but France have done it five times now. The French figures are all over the place mind with huge peaks and troughs and they also show one day when the new cases figure was more than double any day before or since then - this was explained by seventeen thousand cases in nursing homes which had only just been added into the figures, but it does seem to show that while correct figures will eventually be arrived at, the figures given on a daily basis are not going to be 100 per cent accurate.

[ToTaL ITK]

as far as Italy goes , what im hearing is that in the beginning of the lockdown there were lots of people ignoring it.

[Elwood Blues]

Yes, I agree - I look at the hesitation with implementing the current lockdown and with things like the closing of pubs and think how many lives is that going to cost? I appreciate the scale of the task a new Government has had foisted upon them, but it strikes me that in the early days of this crisis, it was treated in the kind of way a financial crisis would be in that it was almost like an experiment in which some sort of pet theory could be proved or otherwise - we went against the prevailing view among many of our neighbours and it looks like we could pay for that.

Were the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Officer plus the other experts such as Professor Neal Ferguson complicit in this *experiment" then Bob?

[Croesy Blue]

Were the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Officer plus the other experts such as Professor Neal Ferguson complicit in this *experiment" then Bob?

So what?

[the other bob wilson]

Were the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Officer plus the other experts such as Professor Neal Ferguson complicit in this *experiment" then Bob?

Yes, they were, but see Croesy Blue's answer to your question. It may be harsh, but the Government will be the ones to carry the can in any post virus inquest if there is one to be carried - rest assured, there'd be plenty of crowing from the politicians if our figures looked like Germany's do currently.

[Elwood Blues]

Yes, they were, but see Croesy Blue's answer to your question. It may be harsh, but the Government will be the ones to carry the can in any post virus inquest if there is one to be carried - rest assured, there'd be plenty of crowing from the politicians if our figures looked like Germany's do currently.

So you are saying the experts acted illegally or were morally wrong in what they told the government?

[Tuerto]

So you are saying the experts acted illegally or were morally wrong in what they told the government?

Doesn't matter, Governments are advised on hundreds of topics. They either decide to take that advice or not, in short, it's their shout and they take responsibility, a bit like a football manager has to do when he spends 6 million quid on a bunk striker, he would've had scouting reports although the responsibility for the players success or failure is his.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

So you are saying the experts acted illegally or were morally wrong in what they told the government?

This man is the Deputy Scientific Advisor at the Home Office.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12...-boris-johnson

As I posted a week ago before being shot down, people with views contrary to Neil Ferguson's are beginning to gain sufficient confidence to voice their opinions..

[lardy]

This man is the Deputy Scientific Advisor at the Home Office.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12...-boris-johnson

As I posted a week ago before being shot down, people with views contrary to Neil Ferguson's are beginning to gain sufficient confidence to voice their opinions..

To be fair, you were shot down for saying that the media and politicians were being drama queens. And this was less than a month ago, when we were well into it.

[the other bob wilson]

So you are saying the experts acted illegally or were morally wrong in what they told the government?

I honestly don't see why you would ask that based on the reply I gave you, but I'll answer, no, not illegally. Imorally is a bit more difficult, I hesitate to say that, but the original herd mentality theorising would, by general agreement I'd say now, have led to tens of thousands more deaths. That should have set alarm bells among the politicians and I'm pretty sure I would have viewed it as a real last resort if I had been in the Government, yet it seems they were willing to go along with this until a report was published showing the extent of the death and suffering this would cause.

As I have mentioned on here previously, it has struck me that there was something of the same sort of feeling of experimentation you sometimes see in times of economic crisis in official thinking initially and, even when the decision was made to go for a policy of social distancing, Boris Johnson especially seemed reluctant to commit fully to it. Therefore , while I wouldn't say Government or officials were morally wrong, they did seem willing to see more die when most of the world was talking in terms of testing and social isolation.

[Croesy Blue]

From this weeks private eye:

What’s most striking about Britain’s idiosyncratic approach to tackling the coronavirus pandemic is the lack of public support from senior scientists and public health experts outside the government circle.

Most support Johnson’s belated attempt at a lockdown but the worry is the U.K. is 2 weeks behind the curve, particularly in London.

Many believe he wasted 9 weeks on nuanced nudging when the evidence from China and Italy was tougher methods were needed. Many remain incredulous at the lack of contact tracing, not just in the community but of NHS staff, who don’t know if they have it so err on the side of caution and stay off work.

Johnson has ignored the evidence based advice of the WHO and gone it alone.

So that’s Elwood’s science defence of his beloved Tory leader blown out the water.

There’s also an article about him being resistant to being too quickly by the science. He was recommended to close bars and schools in February - which they didn’t do until late March. Might have been a chance we would have not had as many deaths and not had to crash the economy then.

[surge]

The question will also be asked: to some extent we had time on our side. Why are our deaths similar to those those countries which didn’t (Italy) and against those countries (like us) which did (Germany/Denmark/Norway)?

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/st...53002392637440

Can we make sure we ask this question when this nightmare is over? Can we make sure we ask why there was such slow move towards daily briefings and an even slower move to follow up questions in those briefings? Can we ask why there is such a lack of equipment, that not every source has been tapped, and why we're now asking those with a 3D printer to get involved?

[Croesy Blue]

That’s the thing it’s the slow response and lack of preparedness that’s ****ed everything.