Covid19 - no need to panic - still

[roo860]

On 4/19/2020 at 6:04 AM, Logosone said:

I'm not saying they know nothing. 

 

The WHO knows an awful lot, Mike Ryan was absolutely right to suggest that testing and isolating the infected, bringing the fight to the virus, was the key, and that just going into lockdown was not going to solve this issue.

 

However, when experts get it wrong, like the experts in the UK, who chose extreme lockdown at the expense of testing early on, because they believed, in the absence of evidence, like you, that lockdown was the all-solving panacea, then the media, and everyone in a free country has the right to point out that those experts got it wrong.

 

Especially when those lockdown policies are putting the economic existence of many people in danger, and are more likely to cause the societal and economic problems you referred to earlier.

 

We can't just sit there and defend everything governements and "experts" are doing, and keep trusting they're doing everything right, when obviously the result show that is not the case.

I was wondering when you were going to mention the UK (as you normally do), took a bit longer than usual, but you got there in the end, congrats.

[roo860]

3 minutes ago, roo860 said:

Deleted

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by roo860

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/19/2020 at 1:43 PM, AussieBob18 said:

It was right to lockdown the world when it appeared that between 50 million and 200 million would die.
But it is not right to continue the lockdown when it appears that only 1 million or 2 million will die.
More people die of TB and AIDS every year than that – it is accepted - and we live with it - and we all take precautions.
1.25 million die in road accidents (and far more seriously injured) and yet we dont ban private cars do we?

I doubt many in high places will welcome such common sense. They are going to look rather "silly" if their actions were not justified. Careers depend on it being as bad as they keep telling us.

I envy Aussies. The government actions appear far less draconian than in in NZ, but rates seem comparable.

While Oz is loosening restrictions, NZ faces another week of total lockdown and at least 2 more of almost total lockdown, or as they say, level 4 with KFC.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

And as far as civil rights are concerned, is it not my civil right to not catch a disease that could be deadly to me as opposed to your ill conceived right to carry on as normal?  

You have every right to self isolate and stay in your room with 6 months worth of canned food, but why do you think my right to live a decent life should be destroyed by draconian lockdowns that are going to ruin the lives of millions that would NOT die, and most would have no more than symptoms, if that?

[AussieBob18]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I doubt many in high places will welcome such common sense. They are going to look rather "silly" if their actions were not justified. Careers depend on it being as bad as they keep telling us.

I envy Aussies. The government actions appear far less draconian than in in NZ, but rates seem comparable.

While Oz is loosening restrictions, NZ faces another week of total lockdown and at least 2 more of almost total lockdown, or as they say, level 4 with KFC.

That is what happens under 'modern' Govts - in response to any crisis they automatically go into authoritarian role. Covid is a crisis and the modern Govts will usually respond without rational thought or reason.  As Thomas Sowell said (something like) - 'the strongest argument for socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against socialism is that it doesn't work. But those who live by words and feelings will always have a soft spot in their hearts for socialism - because it sounds so good'. 

 

I think you will find at the core of most modern Govts is a belief that all people are good and will be good in all situations, if they are just 'educated' how to be good, and that they are 'guided' towards doing the right thing (according to them).  To those Govts these are not draconian impositions due to Covid, they are necessary impositions to protect everyone.  As in all modern 'nanny states' they will protect everyone to their death - and then still feel vindicated and rightious, because they were only protecting everyone.

 

What we are seeing in the ridiculous over the top Covid social distancing controls being put in place in some locations aroud the world, is what happens when a Govt has too much power and control.  It should have been much harder to impose the Covid controls and lockdown than it was. Think about it - they didnt have to 'prove' it was necessary to anyone or anything - they just decided and did it.  Whether the Covid controls were right or wrong is another issue - this issue is whether the Govts should have been so easily able to enforce them. Not since WW2 have western Govts been able to imnpose such removel of personal rights and freedoms - it was far too easy. 

 

'V for Vendetta' is a movie is well worth watching and listening to closely in these current times. This is one of many classic lines in the movie:  'People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."

 

Similar words were spoken long ago - "When people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

 

 

[Logosone]

7 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The quote in my post was from Tony Cooke of Cambridge Clinical Laboratories, not Hancock. 

 

And from your Independent article: "Though it has just 55 employees globally, TIB had experience in developing tests for Sars and the swine flu." 

 

Lucky for them they had that experience. Maybe be thankful for that rather than use it to criticise other countries' capabilities. 

 

I'm not criticising the UK's capabilities, on the contrary, I am saying the UK very much had the capabilities to produce test kits, just like Germany and South Korea.

 

Here you see how UK firms had already volunteered to help the UK produce test kits. However, exactly like the error of the CDC in the US in refusing help from private firms because they wanted only the best test kits, Public Health in England and the UK health ministry refused the help of capable UK companies to produce test kits due to errors in judgement. This is already public knowledge:

 

"Firms bewildered as Government begs them to make test kits after ignoring offers

 

But many firms and scientists said they already offered to help and never heard back. The head of a fully equipped laboratory in Leicester said they approached the NHS on March 17 and said they would be happy to use all of their capacity to help the health service, but are yet to receive a response.

 

Also throwing their hat into the ring is HIV self-test kit makers BioSure. The firm’s chief executive Brigette Bard has demanded the Government sets a standard of accuracy for manufacturers to aim to.

 

Although her company’s tests are already expected to be at least 99.5% accurate, she said they cannot start recalibrating their kits to detect coronavirus until they know what the benchmark is. She told MailOnline: ‘We have spent five years very successfully in the market generating masses of evidence, data, everything, so we have proven we have a highly usable, highly accurate test.’ Taking to Twitter last night, she added: ‘We are ready to go with the validation of this test at PHE. But they won’t look at it because it’s a self-test… This test needs to be in the UK market.’"

 

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/04/firms-confused-government-asks-make-kits-weeks-offers-help-ignored-12507447/

 

So why did Public Health England and Matthew Hancock's ministry refuse the help from UK biotech companies?

 

Because like the CDC in the US at the time they were excessively worried about quality control:

 

‘The public’s health is our foremost priority which is why we won’t rush through tests before they are ready.’, said the Department of Health.

 

This despite the fact that a UK biotech company assured Public Health England that their tests could be 99% accurate, and she even went on twitter in desperation begging the UK government to let her company help in supplying test kits.

 

So the UK had the capabilities to produce test kits, it merely had an incapable government that was not doing all it could to marshall the capabilities the UK had to produce test kits.

 

Even worse, when it came to buying test kits abroad from South Korea, the UK government again dropped the ball because of supposed "quality" concerns about the tests from South Korea. They asked Public Health England to first test the South Korean test kits to see if they worked, however, Public Health England dragged its own testing out so no decision could be made in time to purchase the tests from South Korea.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/04/uk-risks-losing-offer-of-400000-covid-19-testing-kits-a-week

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Logosone

[FarFlungFalang]

11 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

No need to give it a helping hand though eh?

No need indeed,but remember the flattening of the curve is only to slow down the spread rate so we can save a small percentage of the critical cases not to stop the virus which was always going to do it’s thing.So I’m sure the 15 or so lives that have been saved by Thailand’s lockdown over the past month will be grateful for their extra time on the planet when those 2708 who die from the normal flu don’t get the benefit of enjoying the same.Why?

[chessman]

43 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Whether the Covid controls were right or wrong is another issue - this issue is whether the Govts should have been so easily able to enforce them. Not since WW2 have western Govts been able to imnpose such removel of personal rights and freedoms - it was far too easy. 

This seems laudable but would it work in practice? If another virus came along that spread just as easily but killed 20%, would governments waste precious time having to get ‘permission’ to take lockdown measures. It’s a very difficult balance. 

 

Also, very early days, but opinion polls seem to show that people are broadly supporting government measures.
 

v for vendetta! Nice one, written (the original graphic novel) by a well known socialist (Alan Moore) by the way!!! ???? 

[Logosone]

13 minutes ago, chessman said:

This seems laudable but would it work in practice? If another virus came along that spread just as easily but killed 20%, would governments waste precious time having to get ‘permission’ to take lockdown measures. 

That's what happened in Sweden. The Swedish government went to parliament to pass laws that would enable it to put in place swift measures that could violate freedoms Swedes are accustomed to. The Swedish opposition insisted that a proviso be added that those measures could be invalidated if they are no longer necessary and then the law was passed.

 

So looks like it could work in practice.

[chessman]

5 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

flattening of the curve is only to slow down the spread rate

My understanding is that flattening the curve is used when the disease is spreading exponentially and, as you said, it reduces the peak so healthcare can cope. Better than that though is never getting to the point where it increases exponentially! If you accept the Thai numbers then they managed to stop exponential growth.

 

so I think the Thai lockdown is not about flattening the curve, it is about preventing what has happened in Northern Italy or Madrid or New York from happening in Bangkok. I can understand why the Thai government was so cautious initially, but now the virus is (more or less) under control and we know the best way to fight it (testing, testing, testing!) I hope the restrictions will slowly start to be lifted. 

[chessman]

8 minutes ago, Logosone said:

That's what happened in Sweden. The Swedish government went to parliament to pass laws that would enable it to put in place swift measures that could violate freedoms Swedes are accustomed to. The Swedish opposition insisted that a proviso be added that those measures could be invalidated if they are no longer necessary and then the law was passed.

This seems like a good way of doing it, all emergency laws should be temporary anyway.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, chessman said:

My understanding is that flattening the curve is used when the disease is spreading exponentially and, as you said, it reduces the peak so healthcare can cope. Better than that though is never getting to the point where it increases exponentially! If you accept the Thai numbers then they managed to stop exponential growth.

 

so I think the Thai lockdown is not about flattening the curve, it is about preventing what has happened in Northern Italy or Madrid or New York from happening in Bangkok. I can understand why the Thai government was so cautious initially, but now the virus is (more or less) under control and we know the best way to fight it (testing, testing, testing!) I hope the restrictions will slowly start to be lifted. 

So, what is your desire when the restrictions are lifted and it starts again, because we don't have herd immunity? How many times can a population be locked down before society ends?

[johnnybangkok]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You have every right to self isolate and stay in your room with 6 months worth of canned food, but why do you think my right to live a decent life should be destroyed by draconian lockdowns that are going to ruin the lives of millions that would NOT die, and most would have no more than symptoms, if that?

An easy reply to a ridiculous question. My 'choice' of 'stay in your room with 6 months worth of canned food' doesn't do anyone else any harm. Your option 'to live a decent life' potentially does.

If major decisions like self-isolation where given directly to individuals then chaos would ensue. Whether you agree or not on the method, self-isolation is all about not contacting other people. I would have thought that was painfully obvious.

[AussieBob18]

33 minutes ago, chessman said:

This seems laudable but would it work in practice? If another virus came along that spread just as easily but killed 20%, would governments waste precious time having to get ‘permission’ to take lockdown measures. It’s a very difficult balance. 

Also, very early days, but opinion polls seem to show that people are broadly supporting government measures.
V for vendetta! Nice one, written (the original graphic novel) by a well known socialist (Alan Moore) by the way!!! ???? 

Yes you are right - but the balance is too far with the Govt now.  What will come out of this in the future, once they realise and accept that the WHO/CDC driven panic was unnecessary, is a reluctance to again take it on face value that the experts are always right, anbd the realisation that Govts are all nazis at heart and will go too far if they are not stopped.

 

That could be bad as you say when something as contagious as the Flu and as deadly as Ebola surfaces. Maybe (I hope) what will come of that realisation is the need to enforce globally total transparency and reporting mechanisms for all new infectious spreads - and the banning of all travel into and out of any country that does not comply with those requirements.  Just think, if we had all done what Taiwan did (who know the CCP better than anyone except maybe Hong Kong), this infection would have been controlled much better and not spread as far and wide.

 

So was George Orwell, who wrote the two most influentual and defining novels about society's that are run by despotic leaders under totalitarian rule - 1984 and Animal Farm.  Unfortunately, like most men of words and thoughts (academics), he failed to see the irony of what socialism always becomes - totalitarian.  And that is because not all people have goodwill towards all others, and the easiest form of Govt bad people can get power in, is one based on socialism (Lenin Stalin Mao etc.).  If you think that China and Nth Korea are not modern examples of exactly what George Orwell wrote about, then you are very wrong.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

An easy reply to a ridiculous question. My 'choice' of 'stay in your room with 6 months worth of canned food' doesn't do anyone else any harm. Your option 'to live a decent life' potentially does.

If major decisions like self-isolation where given directly to individuals then chaos would ensue. Whether you agree or not on the method, self-isolation is all about not contacting other people. I would have thought that was painfully obvious.

I'm afraid you have to evidence your view that his option to live a decent life would potentially cause harm. If he is healthy and not a carrier of the virus, of course his actions would cause no harm. You can't just lock up people without evidence. It's up to you to carry out the testing, if he is infected isolated him by all means. But not the healthy.

 

In fact the major decision of self isolation was given directly to individuals in Sweden. Did chaos then ensue?

 

Did it?

 

No, chaos did not ensue. Even though the Swedish government left it up to the people to self-isolate.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

An easy reply to a ridiculous question. My 'choice' of 'stay in your room with 6 months worth of canned food' doesn't do anyone else any harm. Your option 'to live a decent life' potentially does.

If major decisions like self-isolation where given directly to individuals then chaos would ensue. Whether you agree or not on the method, self-isolation is all about not contacting other people. I would have thought that was painfully obvious.

In your opinion.

Of course those that at risk should be isolated at government expense, the rest are not at significant risk. Those that think like you are able to isolate yourselves at your own expense. However you apparently think my life should be ruined because of your opinion. I do not.

You support government detaining innocent people against their will because they can. I do not. I thought we lived in a democracy- perhaps I was wrong.

 

The real cost of lockdowns- poverty, domestic violence, suicide, crime are not taken into consideration. Chaos would not occur. Life for most of us would carry on as normal, but without those like you that wish to isolate.

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

That is what happens under 'modern' Govts - in response to any crisis they automatically go into authoritarian role. Covid is a crisis and the modern Govts will usually respond without rational thought or reason.  As Thomas Sowell said (something like) - 'the strongest argument for socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against socialism is that it doesn't work. But those who live by words and feelings will always have a soft spot in their hearts for socialism - because it sounds so good'. 

 

I think you will find at the core of most modern Govts is a belief that all people are good and will be good in all situations, if they are just 'educated' how to be good, and that they are 'guided' towards doing the right thing (according to them).  To those Govts these are not draconian impositions due to Covid, they are necessary impositions to protect everyone.  As in all modern 'nanny states' they will protect everyone to their death - and then still feel vindicated and rightious, because they were only protecting everyone.

 

What we are seeing in the ridiculous over the top Covid social distancing controls being put in place in some locations aroud the world, is what happens when a Govt has too much power and control.  It should have been much harder to impose the Covid controls and lockdown than it was. Think about it - they didnt have to 'prove' it was necessary to anyone or anything - they just decided and did it.  Whether the Covid controls were right or wrong is another issue - this issue is whether the Govts should have been so easily able to enforce them. Not since WW2 have western Govts been able to imnpose such removel of personal rights and freedoms - it was far too easy. 

 

'V for Vendetta' is a movie is well worth watching and listening to closely in these current times. This is one of many classic lines in the movie:  'People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."

 

Similar words were spoken long ago - "When people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

 

 

Your original post was well thought out and had many suggestions that I agree with (although it has be said you have significently changed your tune from previous posts you have made over the last few weeks) but now you've just gone and spoiled it with your this 'is what happens when a Govt has too much power and control' nonsense.  

You argue how difficult it should have been for governments to impose lockdowns when this power to dictate in a crisis has been demonstrated many times as an absolute neccessity in terms of crisis. Whether it was WW II, swine flu or terrorist threats, the power for governments to take full control of the people is an essential tool in tackling major emergencies.  

You argue 'It should have been much harder to impose the Covid controls and lockdown than it was' so what do you suggest? A full parliamentary debate? A televised head-to-head between the conflicting opinions? Oh I know, lets have a referendum. That seemed to work out well before.

The UK is not some dystopian, facist, totalitarium state as you are trying to parallel with your 'V for Vendetta' analogy (although I think many of you think it is) and you are not some plucky freedom fighter fighting the forces of tyrany by pointing out to us ''sheep' that we had all better wake up and smell the roses. I'm afraid the reality is much more boring than that. They're just a bunch of well meaning, if highly incompetant people, trying desperately to catch up on a crisis that they absolutely should have been ahead of already.

As I've said before, questions need to be asked and people held accountable but the time for finger pointing should come after we have this all under control.  

[chessman]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, what is your desire when the restrictions are lifted and it starts again, because we don't have herd immunity? How many times can a population be locked down before society ends?

Herd immunity needs much more than 50% to be infected! We want to avoid that if we can. South Korea seem to be the model for response, they tested a lot and contact traced. If you can do that then you can lift the lockdown.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, chessman said:

Herd immunity needs much more than 50% to be infected! We want to avoid that if we can. South Korea seem to be the model for response, they tested a lot and contact traced. If you can do that then you can lift the lockdown.

Why? Herd immunity would be very desirable. It would end the virus pandemic.

 

South Korea did the right thing with testing and tracing, yes, however, South Korea is also a country known for endemic corruption, and whether it's figures are anywhere near accurate is highly implausible. The same applies to China, Japan and Thailand. None of the figures of any of these countries are likely to stand up to scrutiny.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Whether it was WW II, 

Far as I know the government had a vote to take extraordinary power at the start of WW2. The PM didn't just take over. Far as I know parliament functioned throughout WW2. It certainly did during WW1. They even had an election in Britain.

If democracy is so easily abandoned for this, it does not bode well for the future. It could even be found that some governments acted illegally.

 

[johnnybangkok]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In your opinion.

Of course those that at risk should be isolated at government expense, the rest are not at significant risk. Those that think like you are able to isolate yourselves at your own expense. However you apparently think my life should be ruined because of your opinion. I do not.

You support government detaining innocent people against their will because they can. I do not. I thought we lived in a democracy- perhaps I was wrong.

 

The real cost of lockdowns- poverty, domestic violence, suicide, crime are not taken into consideration. Chaos would not occur. Life for most of us would carry on as normal, but without those like you that wish to isolate.

I believe that the good of the masses overrules the needs of the individual. A good anology would be WW II.

When Germany started bombing London, the government ordered a blackout across the city. What would you think of the guy that said 'I don't want to turn my lights out! My indivual rights shouldn't be dictated by the government and just because turning lights out is your opinion, it shouldn't dictate my options!' A ridiculous scenario I think you'll agree but one I think demonstrates the flaw in your argument.

My views on how to tackle this crisis is well documented in previous posts but since you're late to the party, I'll go over them once again for you as we do in fact agree on many things. I don't think that self-isolation is the best option but with the obviously best option of testing, tracking and isolating not available, it's the best of several bad options. My answer to the crisis though is:-

1. Those deemed 'most at risk' must continue to self-isolate until either the crisis abates or a vacine is found.

2. All people on the 'front line' must be adequately protected, meaning mask and gowns and anything else they need is readily available.

3. Borders must open but only people with a valid health certificate (dated within the last 2 weeks) are allowed to travel.

4. Testing MUST be ramped up, with those testing positive forced to self-isolate (or admitted to hospital if particularly bad). To this end, large amounts of government funds need to be deployed to testing, either from existing 'emergency funds' or seperate funds. For example if the US put $100 billion of the $2 trillion stimulus to testing, it would be able to test enough people to get on top of the outbreak. Testing machines (from the likes of Cepheid and Roche), can handle 4,200 tests a day; build five thousand of those machines, and you can test 20 million people a day. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/08/998785/stop-covid-or-save-the-economy-we-can-do-both.

6. Emulate successful countries like South Korea, who have managed to mitigate the deadlier effects of the virus whilst still keeping much of their economy open. Behind its success has been the most expansive and well-organized testing program in the world, combined with extensive efforts to isolate infected people and trace and quarantine their contacts. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/coronavirus-cases-have-dropped-sharply-south-korea-whats-secret-its-success

  

[chessman]

22 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

So was George Orwell, who wrote the two most influentual and defining novels about society's that are run by despotic leaders under totalitarian rule - 1984 and Animal Farm.  Unfortunately, like most men of words and thoughts (academics), he failed to see the irony of what socialism always becomes - totalitarian.  And that is because not all people have goodwill towards all others, and the easiest form of Govt bad people can get power in, is one based on socialism (Lenin Stalin Mao etc.).  If you think that China and Nth Korea are not modern examples of exactly what George Orwell wrote about, then you are very wrong.

Very simplistic. Extremes on both sides are clearly bad. But (for example) the Scandinavian countries (have we discussed Sweden enough yet?) are successful functioning democracies with many of the ‘Socialist’ qualities that people like Orwell would have supported.

[FarFlungFalang]

56 minutes ago, chessman said:

My understanding is that flattening the curve is used when the disease is spreading exponentially and, as you said, it reduces the peak so healthcare can cope. Better than that though is never getting to the point where it increases exponentially! If you accept the Thai numbers then they managed to stop exponential growth.

 

so I think the Thai lockdown is not about flattening the curve, it is about preventing what has happened in Northern Italy or Madrid or New York from happening in Bangkok. I can understand why the Thai government was so cautious initially, but now the virus is (more or less) under control and we know the best way to fight it (testing, testing, testing!) I hope the restrictions will slowly start to be lifted. 

You can do the lockdown to slow the spread but you won't stop it as immunity is the only thing that will stop it regardless of Thailand's numbers if one believes or not the virus will do it's thing when the restrictions are removed all those without immunity will end up getting it anyway unless you spend the rest of one's like in lockdown.The info we get in Thailand comes from a repressive regime controlling the narrative,if you think those in control here have any empathy for anything other than controlling their vast wealth and the narrative then you are welcome to think that and I won't try and convince you that they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.The flattening also drags out the duration into a long slow suffocating lock down and if the Thai numbers are to be believed the all this lockdown business will save the lives of about 15 elderly sick people over one month of lock downs 15 lives is about 1/3 of the daily road fatality.So maybe we should go into permanent lock down to save the lives of those road fatalities many of which are children and babies,do you have the same empathy for them? I'm sure you do but those in control of this lockdown don't they only did this lockdown to stop Thanathorn's support group. 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I believe that the good of the masses overrules the needs of the individual. A good anology would be WW II.

When Germany started bombing London, the government ordered a blackout across the city. What would you think of the guy that said 'I don't want to turn my lights out! My indivual rights shouldn't be dictated by the government and just because turning lights out is your opinion, it shouldn't dictate my options!' A ridiculous scenario I think you'll agree but one I think demonstrates the flaw in your argument.

My views on how to tackle this crisis is well documented in previous posts but since you're late to the party, I'll go over them once again for you as we do in fact agree on many things. I don't think that self-isolation is the best option but with the obviously best option of testing, tracking and isolating not available, it's the best of several bad options. My answer to the crisis though is:-

1. Those deemed 'most at risk' must continue to self-isolate until either the crisis abates or a vacine is found.

2. All people on the 'front line' must be adequately protected, meaning mask and gowns and anything else they need is readily available.

3. Borders must open but only people with a valid health certificate (dated within the last 2 weeks) are allowed to travel.

4. Testing MUST be ramped up, with those testing positive forced to self-isolate (or admitted to hospital if particularly bad). To this end, large amounts of government funds need to be deployed to testing, either from existing 'emergency funds' or seperate funds. For example if the US put $100 billion of the $2 trillion stimulus to testing, it would be able to test enough people to get on top of the outbreak. Testing machines (from the likes of Cepheid and Roche), can handle 4,200 tests a day; build five thousand of those machines, and you can test 20 million people a day. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/08/998785/stop-covid-or-save-the-economy-we-can-do-both.

6. Emulate successful countries like South Korea, who have managed to mitigate the deadlier effects of the virus whilst still keeping much of their economy open. Behind its success has been the most expansive and well-organized testing program in the world, combined with extensive efforts to isolate infected people and trace and quarantine their contacts. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/coronavirus-cases-have-dropped-sharply-south-korea-whats-secret-its-success

  

I agree with your points with the exception of borders. Borders should be kept closed till the crisis is over. Resources can't be wasted on border control, except for trade. With VDO conferencing there is no need for people to travel for business.

 

When Germany started bombing London, Britain had legally passed parliamentary authority to impose a blackout.

 

Good of the masses, indeed. However the lockdowns will cause more harm to more of the masses than the virus if we were doing what Sweden has done. They have the sensible solution, IMO.

THAT is the real danger.

Isolate those at risk, keep social distancing, test and isolate, carry on.

 

When it's all over we will see if lockdown or the Swedish solution was the right way. I'm going with Sweden.

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Far as I know the government had a vote to take extraordinary power at the start of WW2. The PM didn't just take over. Far as I know parliament functioned throughout WW2. It certainly did during WW1. They even had an election in Britain.

If democracy is so easily abandoned for this, it does not bode well for the future. It could even be found that some governments acted illegally.

 

Facts are important.

The UK formed a coalition government during WW 2 with Churchill as head of the government. As much as parliamnet functioned during WW2, for obvious reasons much of what was decided was NOT put to parliament (you can't have a vote on every aspects of a war). There was no election during WW2. The first one was July 1945, 2 months after the end of WW2 (in Europe at least) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_United_Kingdom_general_election.

Churchill lost to Atlee.  

[Skallywag]

13 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I don't think that self-isolation is the best option but with the obviously best option of testing, tracking and isolating not available, it's the best of several bad options.

+1.  As testing , contact tracing, and isolation/quarantine becomes readily and widely available, "non-essential" businesses can reopen

[chessman]

17 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Why? Herd immunity would be very desirable. It would end the virus pandemic.

Herd immunity in Thailand. 40 million+ infected. Even if the Mortality rate is at the low end, that’s 200,000 dead, probably more.

 

if the virus is spreading uncontrollably I can at least understand the logic of it (though still would disagree), to think it is desirable in a country in which the spread has been controlled is just nuts.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

There was no election during WW2. The first one was July 1945, 2 months after the end of WW2 (in Europe at least) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_United_Kingdom_general_election.

Churchill lost to Atlee.  

I didn't say they had an election during WW2. They had one during WW1 when Lloyd George won.

 

I'm pretty sure the British parliament had a vote to install a coalition government. Tell me if I'm wrong.

[Logosone]

18 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

 

6. Emulate successful countries like South Korea, who have managed to mitigate the deadlier effects of the virus whilst still keeping much of their economy open. Behind its success has been the most expansive and well-organized testing program in the world, combined with extensive efforts to isolate infected people and trace and quarantine their contacts. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/coronavirus-cases-have-dropped-sharply-south-korea-whats-secret-its-success

  

It's not the case that South Korea's testing has been the most expansive.

 

Both Germany and Italy have tested more than South Korea. It is true though that South Korea has kept its economy largely open. Their worst affected city was not Seoul, but Daegu and it was never cordoned off.

 

 

 

 

[smutcakes]

So many experts on 'Herd Immunity' when if you asked them 2 months ago they would have not a clue what you were even talking about..... (and they still don't)