On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 19:33:51, Anne B <***@btinternet.com>
Post by Anne B
I have absolutely no intention of allowing myself to be deprived of
exercise and fresh air.
I am in the fortunate position of living in a place surrounded by
forests, moorland and stony beaches, all of them visited by very few
So (unless it becomes a criminal offence) I shall not hesitate to drive
That _is_ a concern: the question of enforcement is something they have
- probably for good reasons - been very backcoming about. (OK, what _is_
the opposite of forthcoming? OK, reticent will do.)
Post by Anne B
(alone) to remotish spots, where I am very unlikely to meet anyone
else, and if I do there is plenty of space to keep well away from them.
Lucky you. And I say that without malice: I am genuinely glad for you.
_My_ pennorth on the matter:
We _definitely_ need more testing, so we have a better idea of what's
happening where - and front-line workers should definitely have access
to tests, every day if they want.
Next: We should be getting clear, unvarnished, figures, at least every
day - number tested, number of those positive/negative, number dead,
NUMBER RECOVERED, and some RATIOS.
Only _after_ those have been given, should be have some strategies
What those strategies should _be_, I'm not so sure. Like otherrats, I
don't think anyone in government actually _wants_ to kill people
(tempting though it might be to claim "they" are trying to kill off
those who will be expensive). Whether this "herd immunity" lark is
actually a good or bad way to achieve it (regardless of whether any
other country is doing it), I just DON'T KNOW. Boris saying "lots of
people will die" is certainly not good PR, but that doesn't mean it's
not true - again, we just DON'T KNOW. Unless a cure is found, there
_will_ be lots of deaths, _whichever_ way we go about it - even if the
NHS _isn't_ overwhelmed; just from the fact that, in time, most of us
_will_ get it. (Figures seem to be settling on: about 80% of us will get
it; about 20% will require hospitalisation, 5-15% seriously; the actual
death rate somewhere between 0.6% and 3% [with 5% as an outlier]. That's
a lot of dead.)
Best figures I can get: 2020-3-16, 9 a.m. for the first line:
44,105 tested, of which 1,543 positive, rest negative.
_Estimated_ number of _actual_ cases: 35,000-50,000.
NUMBER RECOVERED: NOT AVAILABLE. I really want this one, however
3.5% of those tested - positive. (Expected more like 80% in long run.)
0.125% of those tested - dead. (Expected higher eventually.)
3.6% of those tested positive have died.
That last is the best I have for the UK death rate, but it's very
flawed: it'll be worse because more of those tested positive will die;
it'll be better because - I had a reason but have forgotten it.
3.6% of 80% of the population is a lot. (Even if it's 0.6%, it's a lot.)
And that's _without_ NHS overload. Let's just hope we can avoid overload
(I fear not, but hope I'm wrong), and a cure comes along.
And the economy doesn't collapse.
Today's Borisisms - don't go out, but no actual orders to close - will
kill bars/restaurants/theatres/cinemas (and bust those who work there),
etc., unless something slightly different is planned; even if it wasn't
the intention to evade that responsibility, the _appearance_ that it is
will be seized on by an awful lot of people, not just the opposition.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I'm the oldest woman on primetime not baking cakes.
- Anne Robinson, RT 2015/8/15-21