Will Coronavirus lead to the cancellation of Glastonbury?

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, Homer said:

Yep, 'herd immunity' was also discussed on Radio 4 a minute ago.

and once that herd immunity is thru the population, in the future only kids will get it - and they get a very mild version. 

It'll probably end up being less of a health issue than the flu, but we have to go thru stuff to get there.

[ModernMan]

Got to say I’m not understanding government criticism at the mo. I’m absolutely no Tory but I actually think they are currently doing a good and sensible job at the moment. 
 

People don’t want to hear it but it does need to pass through the country now and yes some people will die. It’s all about trying to control the rate of that now. 

[stuartbert two hats]

49 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

In sorry but it’s absolutely nothing like the weather, not even remotely. You can model things like viruses based on all previous historical data and all the new data you’re getting every day. We know viruses grow exponentially (we'll have over 200 new cases today) and that at some point we’ll hit an inflection point when it will then die down.

The weather never has been and never will be accurate much more than a week out.

 

2 minutes ago, Lycra said:

You've blown your argument apart. 

ps I'm a medical professional and part of my job involves modelling

I've probably not woken up yet, but could you expand on why the highlighted phrase undermines Nobby's argument?  BTW, are virus models inherently less chaotic than weather systems in your opinion? 

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

and once that herd immunity is thru the population, in the future only kids will get it - and they get a very mild version. 

It'll probably end up being less of a health issue than the flu, but we have to go thru stuff to get there.

Especially if the initial genetic analysis proves to be correct about the (relative lack of) mutability of the virus compared to influenza.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

6 minutes ago, Lycra said:

You've blown your argument apart. 

ps I'm a medical professional and part of my job involves modelling

I really don’t see how, can you elaborate further for me?

[Tuna]

1 minute ago, ModernMan said:

Got to say I’m not understanding government criticism at the mo. I’m absolutely no Tory but I actually think they are currently doing a good and sensible job at the moment. 

People don’t want to hear it but it does need to pass through the country now and yes some people will die. It’s all about trying to control the rate of that now. 

The point is, it's possible to control the spread of infection (South Korea, China) at the cost of short-term economic impact. The Tories have clearly decided where their priorities lie.

[st dan]

We’re at the stage now where the daily update on the number of ‘confirmed’ cases is largely irrelevant, given the fact that tests aren’t going to be handed out to the majority of people with symptoms, and Boris said yesterday that it is likely that 10/15k are infected already (which will increase rapidly).  
It would be better to just report on the number of deaths at this stage to keep a sense of relative ‘calm’ and perspective to the situation for the wider public. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, Tuna said:

The point is, it's possible to control the spread of infection (South Korea, China) at the cost of short-term economic impact. The Tories have clearly decided where their priorities lie.

You cannot use China as an example 

[JoeyT]

1 minute ago, Tuna said:

The point is, it's possible to control the spread of infection (South Korea, China) at the cost of short-term economic impact. The Tories have clearly decided where their priorities lie.

Correct me if i'm wrong but the Government is guided by health professionals so it's not a case of "deciding where priorities lie" it's acting on the advice they have been given?

[Tuna]

1 minute ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

You cannot use China as an example 

I'm not saying anything about their practice, just that accelerating the downturn is a possibility. 

Just now, JoeyT said:

Correct me if i'm wrong but the Government is guided by health professionals so it's not a case of "deciding where priorities lie" it's acting on the advice they have been given?

The 'health professionals' are behavioural psychologists btw

Edited March 13, 2020 by Tuna

[zero000]

1 minute ago, Tuna said:

The point is, it's possible to control the spread of infection (South Korea, China) at the cost of short-term economic impact. The Tories have clearly decided where their priorities lie.

But the issue is that longer term you risk spikes in the rate of infection when the social distancing measures are relaxed. 

[oneeye]

55 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

In sorry but it’s absolutely nothing like the weather, not even remotely. You can model things like viruses based on all previous historical data and all the new data you’re getting every day. We know viruses grow exponentially (we'll have over 200 new cases today) and that at some point we’ll hit an inflection point when it will then die down.

The weather never has been and never will be accurate much more than a week out.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/corporate/2020/supercomputer-funding-2020

The future of weather forecasting is looking  brighter than you may think...

[Tuna]

1 minute ago, zero000 said:

But the issue is that longer term you risk spikes in the rate of infection when the social distancing measures are relaxed. 

Short-term 'taking it on the chin' does the same, no?

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate here in response to ModernMan's post, btw, I really can't be bothered to do politics today

Edited March 13, 2020 by Tuna

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, Tuna said:

I'm not saying anything about their practice, just that accelerating the downturn is a possibility. 

The 'health professionals' are behavioural psychologists btw

It’s not possible to deal with it how China have, so useless to draw any comparisons.

If we could build a hospital in one week to house every person diagnosed with covid-19 then we’d be laughing, but we can’t.

[JoeyT]

2 minutes ago, Tuna said:

The 'health professionals' are behavioural psychologists btw

You think they have only taken advice from behavioural psychologists?

Don't be dense.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, ModernMan said:

Got to say I’m not understanding government criticism at the mo. I’m absolutely no Tory but I actually think they are currently doing a good and sensible job at the moment. 

I'm not sure I'd go as far as thinking they're doing a good job, but I don't really have any criticisms of what they're doing. Everyone is pissing in the wind with this so they might have it wrong, but I can't really see any logical holes in what they're doing as a strategy.

If nothing else I'm pleased to see them not giving in to public pressure to do things such as close schools. Medically led and not pressure led is definitely the way to go.

 

[zero000]

Just now, Tuna said:

Short-term 'taking it on the chin' does the same, no?

My understanding of it, is that it is more about spreading the number of people infected over time to reduce the mortality of the virus. If you have sudden spikes in infection rates, particularly in winter the health service will be overloaded. People will receive suboptimal care, and be more likely to die as a result.  

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

It’s not possible to deal with it how China have, so useless to draw any comparisons.

If we could build a hospital in one week to house every person diagnosed with covid-19 then we’d be laughing, but we can’t.

we'd also need a large virus-free population to import to the region with the crisis, in order to keep that crisis-place running.

 

[Tuna]

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

You think they have only taken advice from behavioural psychologists?

Don't be dense.

Of course not, I'm being flippant, but it's not a great look imo. If you don't think this bullish attitude is because the Tories want to present the UK as open for business then fine.   

1 minute ago, zero000 said:

My understanding of it, is that it is more about spreading the number of people infected over time to reduce the mortality of the virus. If you have sudden spikes in infection rates, particularly in winter the health service will be overloaded. People will receive suboptimal care, and be more likely to die as a result.  

I agree with the logic. But I don't see how infecting half of the working population is going to achieve this.

[Tuna]

Doing a good job of not talking politics, Tunes.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

2 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Of course not, I'm being flippant, but it's not a great look imo. If you don't think this bullish attitude is because the Tories want to present the UK as open for business then fine.   

I agree with the logic. But I don't see how infecting half of the working population is going to achieve this.

Alternatively, how do you keep half the population away from it forever?

[babyblade41]

I don't think there is another way other than take the advice from the scientists .. Listening on the news channel both yesterday and today and they all seem to be saying the same thing that complete closure will not work for the long term .

Bowing to pressure won't help anyone ..keep the ship steady , 

 

It keeps the the economy ticking over albeit a bit slower but better than it stopping completely , that won't help anyone ..Defer rather than cancel will be more preferable I believe .

 

With GF it might come down to public outcry towards it which could postpone but I don't think they will be forced to cancel

[kalifire]

49 minutes ago, Havors said:

Yeah I remember that there was a few cases that "re-contracted" the virus... but the experts say its almost certain that they had not actually recovered fully before falling ill again. So technically wasnt catching it twice. 

Some people would catch it twice though, even under the 'herd immunity' scenario. Catching it once may not mean you'll never get it again, but it does add to the overall immunity. Some unlucky people might contract it two or three times, but overall, the greater the exposure, the greater the defence.

The delicate balance in all this is that of juggling the effect of the virus (i.e. death rate), vs. keeping things functioning to the extent possible. There's no winning play in this. Taking Glastonbury as a micro-example, if it goes ahead, the government will be criticised for allowing a non-essential event to increase transmission. Cancel it, and we'll all shout about the chief medical advisor and the advice about how ineffective such cancellations are. In our age of personalised truth, everyone will feel validated.

So as much as I loathe to sympathise with the government, they're really in a no-win situation here, and to date I think they've done a reasonable job. In the midst of a pandemic, nobody wins. But if damage can be minimised to the fullest extent possible, that's our best hope.

[oneeye]

[Tuna]

1 minute ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Alternatively, how do you keep half the population away from it forever?

Forever isn't the relevant timescale, it's the length of time needed to create a vaccine (which is estimated to be on the order of a year).

If you want to control the number of infections currently in the country, the spread has to be controlled regardless, surely? Say you take about 50% of the UK population who are not the "at risk" groups, let's call that 30 million. Let them get ill in the space of a month. Let's say 0.1% of people have to be hospitalised, which is not beyond comprehension. That's 300,000 extra people on the NHS, which would be much easier to manage over a long period of time.