RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:People are being absolute tw%ts. Its like a bank holiday, combined with panic buying and a lot of mothers day get togethers. Looney-tunes

canta_brian wrote:

Banquo wrote:People are being absolute tw%ts. Its like a bank holiday, combined with panic buying and a lot of mothers day get togethers. Looney-tunes

This is an interesting thread on panic buying. Suggests the just in time nature of the UK’s supermarkets supply means a relatively small change to demand can have a huge knock on effect.

Banquo wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Banquo wrote:People are being absolute tw%ts. Its like a bank holiday, combined with panic buying and a lot of mothers day get togethers. Looney-tunes

This is an interesting thread on panic buying. Suggests the just in time nature of the UK’s supermarkets supply means a relatively small change to demand can have a huge knock on effect.

There’s a self fulfilling prophecy in there. 10% more stuff being bought by less people. 10% is not a small change anyway.

canta_brian wrote:

Banquo wrote:

canta_brian wrote: This is an interesting thread on panic buying. Suggests the just in time nature of the UK’s supermarkets supply means a relatively small change to demand can have a huge knock on effect.

There’s a self fulfilling prophecy in there. 10% more stuff being bought by less people. 10% is not a small change anyway.

Did you read the whole thread? It kind of makes sense in the round.

Banquo wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Banquo wrote: There’s a self fulfilling prophecy in there. 10% more stuff being bought by less people. 10% is not a small change anyway.

Did you read the whole thread? It kind of makes sense in the round.

I did. See edit. It makes ‘sense’ but doesn’t reflect what is happening round here certainly. Hour long queue into Tesco’s this morning, car park usually half empty rammed. Local well stocked co-op bereft of eggs, milk. Bread.

Digby wrote:My family for reasons I was roundly mocking had been busy assembling Brexit boxes, aka Boris boxes, lest there were any supply issues in the face of stupidity. So for now we're well stocked in face of stupidity, albeit we're also having to use the cloakroom and down the end of the dining room to store additional food. I'm also grateful at this time we didn't make much impression on the booze bought for Christmas, hopefully we're out of this in time to restock in time for next Christmas, and we might not be

Donny osmond wrote:Just looking at the WHO site, how come Germany has 21000 cases, the 3rd most cases in Europe, but only 67 deaths, whereas France has 14000 cases but 570 deaths? Is there a variance in how deaths are reported or is the German public health system an unreported miracle system? I was always under the impression that the a French system was considered to be the best in Europe, although as I sit here I can’t think why I thought that.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Good job I posted the link to the interview to enable you to respond to my question

The problem is that if you don’t send the kids into school their parents might be removed from the front line response. The pros and cons have obviously been weighed up buy some big brains and this is the best solution. Mass testing is obviously an answer to a lot of issues. Now there is a test on the market that can tell whether you are currently or have previously been infected we will have even more info and answers.

With regards your three step plan:
A) from what I know this was the initial plan but was watered down under lobbying from various bodies
C) again from what I know speaking to local schools, this is the plan dependent on pupil: teacher ratios.

Big brains may have done the analysis but the decision has been made by (more accurately, forced on) Boris, after some considerable "dither and delay". So I have no confidence that this is the best solution.

Agreed, some parents will be removed from the frontline, but hopefully my suggestions would prevent the whole frontline from being infected by their kids.

A) ah, lobbyists, always a force for good,
C) hopefully people will do the most sensible thing within their control.

I’m not sure about this dither and delay line actually being true. The bloke who authored the paper from Kings College upon which the UK and US plans are based reckons the self-isolation clamp downs have come pretty much at the correct time. The fact is we are a few weeks behind the likes of Italy, France and Spain and so will be a few weeks behind them on social distancing measures. There is also plenty of evidence submitted by behavioural psychologists stating that people will put up with only so many weeks of self-isolation before rebelling. It’s not China where the state machine can clamp down or Japan where society is habitually compliant. In one of my early posts there is a link to all the scientific evidence in the hands of the govt. Have a look, there is some very interesting points made on the closure of schools. Of course, there is no complete consensus but, from what I’ve read, they seem to be getting most of it right. That said, I think all would admit the lack of testing was a mistake but there are reasons for this beyond just deciding not to do it to any great extent.

With regards point A), from what I know the NHS were one of the bodies lobbying for it to be one parent/carer. The plan seems to be all hands on deck until you’re symptomatic and that point you self-isolate. Having people sat at home just in case their kid might give it to them isn’t really an option. There’s also the point that most frontline staff will hardly be at home over the next few weeks and months. A friend up here runs a local A&E. He was at home more than usual this week before expecting/anticipating he’ll pretty much have to live at the hospital for the foreseeable.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: So you will almost certainly lose a raft of key workers in the NHS who will stay and look after their kids rather than lose the likely higher income of the non key worker (where there are partners). I'd lose 10% of my team (and have lost 5% already as schools have adopted your policy off their own bat) on top of the 15% already gone to social distancing and self isolation (who almost certainly are not infected tbh). There is no perfect way of doing this, but what is certain is that the NHS will need every hand it can get in the short term, and there is no time to test in the numbers you suggest.

My team have been pretty great so far, and we are about to completely change our delivery model to keep our patients ticking over whilst freeing up staff who can help free up beds and resources in the acutes and community. Been great to see mindset change with our people, who remain positive and determined to help.

Better to lose 10% of your team than for you all to go down with the virus. And your hospital too. Plus the workplaces of all the other keyworkers with their kids in the same place.

No one knows for sure what level of risk is acceptable but if we leave a gaping hole in the quarantine, we're asking for the whole thing to fail.

Given you have no idea of the environment or indeed locality I work in, and given that you've just ignored that this is in addition to the folks already off (10% for up to three months) I'm not sure how you can be so definitive. Staff are vitally needed now (I see Mells has made and expanded on that point to save me saying it)

morepork wrote:The simplest answer is usually the correct one. It's the same virus everywhere. Capacity to deal with case load at any one time is the rate limiting factor in numbers of deaths.

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:The simplest answer is usually the correct one. It's the same virus everywhere. Capacity to deal with case load at any one time is the rate limiting factor in numbers of deaths.

Surely capacity can't be the only thing here, Germany has 50% more cases than France and only 10% of the deaths. Surely who is being tested and how deaths are being recorded speaks to this?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Better to lose 10% of your team than for you all to go down with the virus. And your hospital too. Plus the workplaces of all the other keyworkers with their kids in the same place.

No one knows for sure what level of risk is acceptable but if we leave a gaping hole in the quarantine, we're asking for the whole thing to fail.

Given you have no idea of the environment or indeed locality I work in, and given that you've just ignored that this is in addition to the folks already off (10% for up to three months) I'm not sure how you can be so definitive. Staff are vitally needed now (I see Mells has made and expanded on that point to save me saying it)

Is there something particular to your environment or locality that means your team is more or less susceptible to your whole lot going down with the virus? I haven't mentioned those already missing from your team because they'll be missing in any event, whatever the schools policy. The point is, you will lose a few more to a stricter schools policy, but you are much less likely to lose the whole team.