Furlough the players to avoid a cashflow crisis

malcolms

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
9,819
I think you misunderstand, I was posting about herd immunity specifically and if the UK carried on its original course of letting the virus run through the population to create herd immunity it would supposedly have needed 60% of the population to contract that virus. It was the scientific answer to how we get out of this situation quickly. However, as pointed out above the mortality rate whilst sounding low at 1% when scaled up to 40 million...I'll let you do the math. Boris and the rest of the government were given models by the scientists that if left unchecked, there could have been over 200k deaths and a severely overrun NHS. See https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-relative-impact-different-covid-19-control-measures-uk for an example study although not peer reviewed.

It would be a very brave/callous government who could let that happen when there was a way of mitigating those outcomes, in this case lockdown. It would be political suicide if nothing else. So the government changed tack (some may say belatedly) and the figures will not be as high. They are hoping to keep the fatalities south of 20k.

As shown in other countries the key without a readily available treatment or vaccine to come out of a full lockdown is testing and lots of it once the peak has passed. We are not in that situation yet. Then herd immunity can take place. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2020/03/uk-backed-herd-immunity-beat-covid-19-well-ultimately-need-it/amp

I know listening to specialists hasn't been fashionable and you are free to live your life as you want within the law. When something serious pops up though, I'll listen to the specialists.
The point I made which was quite simple....You said in your original post that 100,000s people were likely to die in the UK if we carried on with the initial strategy...I pointed out that only 100,000 had died globally and that your claim was a extreme case of hyperbole...which clearly it was...It doesnt need a "specialist" in semantics to understand that.
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
24,349
Location
Touring Central Java...
The point I made which was quite simple....You said in your original post that 100,000s people were likely to die in the UK if we carried on with the initial strategy...I pointed out that only 100,000 had died globally and that your claim was a extreme case of hyperbole...which clearly it was...It doesnt need a "specialist" in semantics to understand that.
We don't know for sure how many folks will die, but I did see that the USA is now predicting 60,000 deaths. The impact is felt by hundreds of thousands of people, but you guys weren't discussing that. Whatever : it's all a bleddy nightmare.
 
Top