Coronavirus Pandemic

[F-ZeroOne]

Japan is lifting the state of emergency some cities and prefectures were still under. Japan is something of a puzzle; if anywhere was going to see an explosive outbreak you'd think it would be there, and they've had some problems arranging testing. Yet so far they've been relatively lightly affected, at least compared to other countries. There could be a number of reasons for this - some Japanese wear face masks if not quite as routine then as a normal part of everyday life even when there isn't a pandemic or possibly the general Japanese reputation for cleanliness. I've visited there several times, keep an eye on the news from there and its still baffling me.

[Dio]

No handshakes, for one thing...

[Harlequin]

No handshakes, for one thing...

The Japanese do seem to have social distancing already built into their culture.

[snaff]

Sounds like Dominic Cummings made a sensible decision in difficult circumstances. Made the press sound pretty stupid.

[KlaxonCow]

Okay, I watched the press conference with Dominic Cummings.

The main question I would have asked would have been: "Does no-one else in your family have a driving licence? Can your wife drive?".

Because he says he went up to Durham for the sake of his child - to leave him near family care, should he and his wife succumb to symptoms - but wouldn't it have made more sense for a member of his family to have driven down from Durham and picked up the kid instead?

Then he and his wife could have remained in strict lockdown. And it would not have involved those who were suffering symptoms driving halfway across the country, bringing the virus from London to Durham. Rather it would have been symptom-less family driving down, which would have kept the virus where it was, them remaining in lockdown, per the rules, and the child being cared for.

Then, in order to explain his day trip to Barnhard Castle, Cummings says that his wife suggested - as he'd been feeling funny and had had vision issues with his covid symptoms - that they have a "test drive" that he was okay to drive them all back to London.

But, according to his account, his wife was okay by this point in time. So, as I say, is she unable to drive? Wouldn't it have made sense to, you know, let someone else do the driving, if you have had issues with your vision?

For me, the logic of his account hinges on the idea that, apparently, no-one else - with the better qualification of not having covid symptoms, whilst in charge of a motor vehicle - was available to drive. Only he could drive them up from London - rather than his family driving down from Durham to London to pick up the child and avoid him dangerously getting behind any wheel and remaining in lockdown - and only he could drive them home - even though they were sufficiently worried about his basic capacity to do so, having suffered vision problems, that they felt it necessary to drive to Barnhard Castle and back, just to check that he could see well enough to drive to London.

And, umm, if he couldn't then the residents of Barnhard Castle that he might have run over or crashed his car into - due to this strange insistence that he must drive, instead of someone else who was not still "feeling funny" and wasn't sure his vision wouldn't fail him - are just, I don't know, "collateral damage" in this "test" of whether he was fit to drive? "Oh dear, I've run over half a dozen people... seems like I was not fit to drive, after all". Is that how this "test" was intended to work? If you're not sure, then you simply don't drive.

Like, would he test whether he's fit to wield a gun by picking up a gun and then waving it around, to see if he does or doesn't accidentally shoot someone? A bizarre test. If this isn't, as my gut feeling tells me, just complete bullshit to cover the fact that he was caught in Barnhard Castle, so needs an excuse for that, then the alternative explanation to "he's lying" is that he deliberately chose to drive a vehicle for an hour, exactly for the reason of not knowing whether he was at all safe to be behind the wheel in the first place?!?

If there's any investigative journalists around, then could we please do a simple DVLA check on whether it is true that no-one else in the entirety of Cummings family - and that of his wife's family, who also could have assisted in the same way - has a driving licence, not a single soul in all of their combined families has even once taken a driving test, so that there was absolutely no choice whatsoever but for Cummings to drive in both cases? In order to verify the deeply unlikely logic that his account hinges on.

[Whiteball]

His wife driving is a valid point, but I don't think someone else driving down from Durham is.
That surely would be seen as even worse - a more clear breach?

As for his 'test drive' - He felt ok, and thought he could drive.
But over a distance and for some time, things could possibly change? Sensible to try a shorter distance before screaming down a motorway at 70+ mph?

Biggest thing I took away from the whole thing was the 'journalists' went in with premeditated questions based on what has (true or not) been said recently and when some of the questions where clearly based on falsehoods or had already been answered (some multiple times) they still asked them anyway.

Can't think on their feet and are biased towards just pushing their own agendas. Never mind the 'facts' just told to them.

[snaff]

Okay, I watched the press conference with Dominic Cummings.

The main question I would have asked would have been: "Does no-one else in your family have a driving licence? Can your wife drive?".

Because he says he went up to Durham for the sake of his child - to leave him near family care, should he and his wife succumb to symptoms - but wouldn't it have made more sense for a member of his family to have driven down from Durham and picked up the kid instead?

Then he and his wife could have remained in strict lockdown. And it would not have involved those who were suffering symptoms driving halfway across the country, bringing the virus from London to Durham. Rather it would have been symptom-less family driving down, which would have kept the virus where it was, them remaining in lockdown, per the rules, and the child being cared for.

Then, in order to explain his day trip to Barnhard Castle, Cummings says that his wife suggested - as he'd been feeling funny and had had vision issues with his covid symptoms - that they have a "test drive" that he was okay to drive them all back to London.

But, according to his account, his wife was okay by this point in time. So, as I say, is she unable to drive? Wouldn't it have made sense to, you know, let someone else do the driving, if you have had issues with your vision?

For me, the logic of his account hinges on the idea that, apparently, no-one else - with the better qualification of not having covid symptoms, whilst in charge of a motor vehicle - was available to drive. Only he could drive them up from London - rather than his family driving down from Durham to London to pick up the child and avoid him dangerously getting behind any wheel and remaining in lockdown - and only he could drive them home - even though they were sufficiently worried about his basic capacity to do so, having suffered vision problems, that they felt it necessary to drive to Barnhard Castle and back, just to check that he could see well enough to drive to London.

And, umm, if he couldn't then the residents of Barnhard Castle that he might have run over or crashed his car into - due to this strange insistence that he must drive, instead of someone else who was not still "feeling funny" and wasn't sure his vision wouldn't fail him - are just, I don't know, "collateral damage" in this "test" of whether he was fit to drive? "Oh dear, I've run over half a dozen people... seems like I was not fit to drive, after all". Is that how this "test" was intended to work? If you're not sure, then you simply don't drive.

Like, would he test whether he's fit to wield a gun by picking up a gun and then waving it around, to see if he does or doesn't accidentally shoot someone? A bizarre test. If this isn't, as my gut feeling tells me, just complete bullshit to cover the fact that he was caught in Barnhard Castle, so needs an excuse for that, then the alternative explanation to "he's lying" is that he deliberately chose to drive a vehicle for an hour, exactly for the reason of not knowing whether he was at all safe to be behind the wheel in the first place?!?

If there's any investigative journalists around, then could we please do a simple DVLA check on whether it is true that no-one else in the entirety of Cummings family - and that of his wife's family, who also could have assisted in the same way - has a driving licence, not a single soul in all of their combined families has even once taken a driving test, so that there was absolutely no choice whatsoever but for Cummings to drive in both cases? In order to verify the deeply unlikely logic that his account hinges on.

Sounds like a lot of crazy jibber jabber trying to find guilt where there is none.

[KlaxonCow]

Sounds like a lot of crazy jibber jabber trying to find guilt where there is none.

I'm interested. When you post things like this, do you think all of us have amnesia and don't remember that you're the right-wing troll of the forum, who's posted the most ridiculous statements of defence for your beloved Tories?

Like, seriously, I'm intrigued by the psychology of it. Whether it's some kind of "theory of mind" failure, or you just have such contempt for everyone else, you think we're too stupid to remember these things?

And, come on, my "crazy jibber jabber" is so incredibly simple.

Was there absolutely no-one in London at all that they could have asked to look after their kid? The most senior adviser in government literally had absolutely no-one to fall back on?

Is there absolutely no-one else in their combined families who could have made the journey to pick up their kid from London instead, so that we're not even risking putting someone suffering from covid symptoms in charge of a motor vehicle at all? And that we're not risking spread by having those with covid symptoms travelling halfway across the country?

He claims to have not stopped off anywhere on the journey up there. And I'm sure that could be his intent. But no-one can guarantee that a stop wouldn't be necessary - if the kid needed a piss or the car broke down or something, as things occur out of our control - so this was, at the very least, reckless with the potential spread of the virus.

And then we have the "test drive". He drove 30 miles (and back, so 60 miles total) to a tourist spot to check if his ability to see was still functioning. Then his child wanted the toilet, so his wife took the kid and then he was conveniently sitting in the car alone for this period, so that the eyewitness who does not confirm seeing any wife or child in the car has a convenient reason why. Although, this confirms what I just said - the kid might need a piss, so you can't guarantee that you'll not stop or potentially come into contact with others. It's reckless, even if it's not your intent.

Because, for reasons not explained, ONLY Dominic could drive them up there and ONLY Dominic could drive them back. Rather than, as I say, someone who wasn't suffering from Covid coming down to pick up the kid instead. Or, for his wife, who by his own report was fine by this point, to drive them back instead. And all this also hinges on the idea that the most senior adviser in government really couldn't find anyone to look after his kid in London?

There are many oddities to this story.

It's the old dichotomy. If he's not simply lying, then the alternative is that he's a fucking idiot. "It's not malice", the government pleads, "we just accidentally got everyone killed through our incompetence". Stupidity might be more morally forgivable, but it doesn't lead to any better outcomes.

[venusian]

What strikes me is that the supposedly brightest and best in the country could come up with no better justification. Did the years of bunking off at Eton teach them nothing?

Of course the excuses have surface plausibility: he's spent days crafting them.

[F-ZeroOne]

Look, I know snaff exists just to annoy, but surely even they might just be able to understand that even if one is prepared to give Cummings the benefit of the doubt, the optics of the supposed chief advisor to the Prime Minister doing this whilst the government was advising and in some cases enforcing restrictions on most aspects of public life just looks bad (especially considering a scientific advisor quit voluntarily for flouting the rules, admittedly under somewhat different circumstances).

[gilesgoat]

.. and now "to counter act" the shit that been done .. now from 15 June "all will be open again" ...

.. so .. how much will be the second wave of new deaths ? .. and how many more deaths we'll see ?

Points to remember :

- there's still not exactly a cure
- there's still no vaccine
- not very much is still known
- we still don't know a thing about immunity/not immunity
- supposedly I think the virus is still as much contagious now as it was two months ago

So .. we are we going with this "reopen all" ?

What should make "people die less" now ?

[Harlequin]

Is there some kind of specialist optician around Barnard Castle? I was not aware that the best way to test if one's eyesight is good enough for safe driving is to actually drive sixty miles with one's wife and child in the car, even if one takes a break in the middle to wander around a beauty spot[1] on what, by staggering coincidence, happens to be the wife's birthday.

I also suspect that quite a few thousands of people wish they had been told they were allowed to travel half the country if they had C19 symptoms, a child and an absence of any emergency. I seem to recall the Government telling us the opposite.

I think Starmer is going to be in his element dealing with this in Parliament. The QC now has an actual crime[2] on which to exercise his cross-examination skills.

- supposedly I think the virus is still as much contagious now as it was two months ago

I do not know about two months ago but I think the R is apparently closer to 1 again now than it was two weeks ago.


[1] The witness statement that the family were seen walking by the Tees before getting into the car around lunchtime does not seem to square with Demonic's tale of staying in the car while his son was taken to urinate.

[2] Although Cumming Dom was not charged when the police visited the house. They apparently prefer warnings over fines in Durham.

[KlaxonCow]

Points to remember :

- there's still not exactly a cure
- there's still no vaccine
- not very much is still known
- we still don't know a thing about immunity/not immunity
- supposedly I think the virus is still as much contagious now as it was two months ago

Well, yes, this was why I was supporting a necessary extension of lockdown, until domestic cases are very low to zero (where aggressive "contact tracing" could take over to keep a lid on things). Because, indeed, lockdown and social distancing is what's keeping R down and putting the virus's spread into decline.

And, as I covered earlier, you can do the maths on this, that it doesn't take much of a minority of people who give no fucks - dragging the R back to 2.7, as they "super spread" everywhere - to negate all the efforts of the majority of people who are endeavouring to keep the R below one.

Re-opening too early that R rises to a second peak will, of course, kill more people. But it's also potentially even more economically devastating. Businesses, unable to drum up enough custom and trade in the climate, haemorrhaging costs and going bankrupt. Only to then find, after stepping things back up, they have to then almost immediately step everything back down again for a second lockdown, and then government will have to re-issue the bail outs all over again. More haste, less speed.

All we have is social distancing to control this thing right now. Easing up on it, without a clear mechanism to replace it, is just lifting the lid and hoping nothing jumps out.

What should make "people die less" now ?

Mathematically, having very few people with the disease.

Like, reductio ad absurdum, if no-one in the world had the virus, then it can't spread anywhere because it no longer exists. So, along the same lines, if you've genuinely got "no new domestic cases" in your country then no-one's got it to pass it onto anyone else, and it would be safe to re-open domestically - but, you know, keep a very tight grip on ports of entry to make sure no "imports" from other countries are able to re-seed the nation once more.

But the problem here is that when we're still registering more than a thousand new cases every day - and this is with the "reporting lag" of the weekend, where they can't be bothered to count it all up until Tuesday (the UK is the only nation, by the way, where you can see this periodic "we're not bothering to count on the weekends" pattern) - then that's just not anywhere near low enough yet.

Remember, at wild spread rate of around 2.7, the number of cases and deaths were DOUBLING every 3 days. So... 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, 16000 within two weeks (well, 15 days, but you know what I mean), if this goes back to full unadulterated exponential growth once more.

Everyone looks at the top of the table, as they want to see which countries have it worse and see if things are getting better or worse:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

But I ask you to do something different. Look at the bottom of the table instead. And what you'll notice is that countries with "no active cases" are being marked in green.

You'll see many countries with very few active cases - some with 1, some with 3, a few 4 or 5s - and, within a fortnight, those should - one way or the other - also begin registering zero active cases and more of the table will go green.

If your country is green - genuinely with no active cases - then there is no more "community transmission". No-one in the country has it, so it can't spread. You can safely go "back to normal" - so long as, indeed, you're very careful to make sure that no "imports" from other countries can re-seed the virus in the community again.

This "green zone" can also begin arranging "air bridges" between each other. What applies within green countries, applies between them. They can re-open flights to each other (though, again, with great caution, lest the virus get back into any one of them to re-seed them all - so you really keep on top of any "imports").

And, as the "green zone" expands, more countries can return to normal and re-open flights between each other. But they must absolutely, without question, exclude any non-green-zone countries. The "herd immunity" countries especially so.

This is what I'm getting with "more haste, less speed" regarding the economy. Get to "no active cases", then you're a green country and then lifting of lockdown is actually fine - if no-one has it, then it can't spread. You can return to international trade and travel with other green countries for the same reasons. And this would be, at least domestically, entirely safe to do so.

As I've said before, suppression has an "end game". You push for "no active cases" and then you're domestically safe to open again. If everywhere on planet Earth can get to that point, then the virus is extinct and we can safely re-open everything again. Suppression also has the "end game" of keeping the virus down until the vaccine and drug treatments arrive, which can give the whole planet safe "herd immunity", or treatments could possibly attack what makes this virus so lethal for some and greatly reduce the death count.

Suppression offers legitimate and safe ways out of this.

Wild "herd immunity" is a dice roll that we have no idea could even work - do antibodies grant immunity? How long do they last? If someone is immune, does that also mean they can't be an asymptomatic carrier to those who aren't immune? - and has, as I've covered, multiple ways of proving unachievable or failing miserably.

(Again, there is no such thing as "herd immunity" for the common cold - which is also caused by coronaviruses - or for influenza. So, be clear, it's not just possible but even arguably likely that wild "herd immunity" might be simply completely impossible to achieve.)

Basically, wild herd immunity is the "do nothing, and we'll just eventually have to learn to live with it" plan. It's surrender. It accepts that this'll come back for a second and third and more waves, and more people will die but it's looking to the "long game" that, evolutionarily, there's probably some kind of "balance" to be found. Even the Bubonic Plague did eventually naturally fuck off.

To be honest, the fact that anyone could even think there's a comparison to be made between these two approaches has clearly been driven rather insane by "disaster capitalism" that they're just not registering how reality functions anymore.

Lockdown can definitely be lifted. But no way no how like this, at this point in time, with these numbers. I'd want to see weeks where deaths are registering zeroes on most days.

Right now, social distancing is our ONLY weapon. Disarming yourself too early is dumb.

[KlaxonCow]

on what, by staggering coincidence, happens to be the wife's birthday.

Really? I didn't know that.

Well, I'm convinced. It's definitely 100% bullshit. No question.

[Harlequin]

on what, by staggering coincidence, happens to be the wife's birthday.

Really? I didn't know that.
Well, I'm convinced. It's definitely 100% bullshit. No question.

Wakefield did not mention that on 12 April – her birthday, according to Companies House records – they allegedly made a trip to Barnard Castle, a charming town 30 miles from the Cummings’s family property, described on the English Heritage website as having “fantastic views” and “plenty to do for families on a day out”.