Surely the government should ban traveling

Nebulous2

https://news.sky.com/story/stopping-flights-to-uk-would-only-delay-coronavirus-by-a-matter-of-days-11950635

silvertooth

movilogo said:

While the govt won't admit it, they are actually more worried about economy than few people die of virus.
Not everyone infected is going to die. 

The economy would have suffered less long term if the uk had done a China or Italy sooner

it will come to these shores and then the economic disaster will be worse than if they did it sooner

movilogo

The economy would have suffered less long term if the uk had done a China or Italy sooner

Since when you think our government take any sensible decision? It is always short term thinking by delaying the inevitable. Govt is thinking by some magic (e.g. warmer spring) the infection number will go down. 

silvertooth

movilogo said:

The economy would have suffered less long term if the uk had done a China or Italy sooner

Since when you think our government take any sensible decision? It is always short term thinking by delaying the inevitable. Govt is thinking by some magic (e.g. warmer spring) the infection number will go down. 

It’s not going to go down though, there is no evidence to suggest warmer will reduce the numbers 

Thrugelmir

movilogo said:

The economy would have suffered less long term if the uk had done a China or Italy sooner

Since when you think our government take any sensible decision? It is always short term thinking by delaying the inevitable. Govt is thinking by some magic (e.g. warmer spring) the infection number will go down. 

The Government is following the advice of their advisors. There's modelling for such eventualities. The UK's persistance in tracking sources then immediately self isolating all contacts has paid dividends. Little point in becoming draconian for no benefit. With 80% of people suffering no effects at all from the virus. Hopefully over time there'll be increased levels of immunity. 

Sailtheworld

silvertooth said:

movilogo said:

The economy would have suffered less long term if the uk had done a China or Italy sooner

Since when you think our government take any sensible decision? It is always short term thinking by delaying the inevitable. Govt is thinking by some magic (e.g. warmer spring) the infection number will go down. 

It’s not going to go down though, there is no evidence to suggest warmer will reduce the numbers 

Apart from the fact that other similar viruses are seasonal. And in Hubei province there were less than 10 new cases today.

An appropriate pinch of salt is needed but it's looking like, by June, people start feeling a bit daft that they're having to tunnel through the bog roll mountain to get the lawnmower out.

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir said:

movilogo said:

The economy would have suffered less long term if the uk had done a China or Italy sooner

Since when you think our government take any sensible decision? It is always short term thinking by delaying the inevitable. Govt is thinking by some magic (e.g. warmer spring) the infection number will go down. 

The Government is following the advice of their advisors. There's modelling for such eventualities. The UK's persistance in tracking sources then immediately self isolating all contacts has paid dividends. Little point in becoming draconian for no benefit. With 80% of people suffering no effects at all from the virus. Hopefully over time there'll be increased levels of immunity. 

The UK might just get lucky. Seasonal flu cases aren't particularly high (as shrilly predicted by the media last November) and we've avoided the annual NHS winter crisis for a change. Plus summer's coming - far better to be going into the peak in April than January.

I suspect Johnson is now being advised to overstate the problem 'worst health crisis in a generation' just in case the NHS struggles to cope though.

Thrugelmir

Current planning is expecting a peak in the range of 3-9 weeks.
Planning for the NHS is that older/elderly patients will either recover or die. There'll be insufficient ICU capability to cope if the situation does deteriorate rapidly. 

PS. Has nothing to do with NHS spend. Politicians that kick that particular football will appear extremely stupid and ill informed. 

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir said:

Current planning is expecting a peak in the range of 3-9 weeks.
Planning for the NHS is that older/elderly patients will either recover or die. There'll be insufficient ICU capability to cope if the situation does deteriorate rapidly. 

PS. Has nothing to do with NHS spend. Politicians that kick that particular football will appear extremely stupid and ill informed. 

The chancellor will be reassured to hear that his pledge of  'Whatever extra resources our NHS needs to cope with Covid-19, it will get' will cost nothing.

The NHS is 'free' and like most free resources it's used inefficiently. However it's silly to claim this is nothing to do with NHS spend. The NHS struggles to cope with other completely unforeseen events - like that rare event called winter. It'll ration resource in the usual manner; by queue and refusal to treat things that are less likely to cause a headline.

silvertooth

So the UK are saying that all these other countries have got it wrong going on lock down now, they would be better off waiting before total lockdown?