shurlock

Clearly v.early days, critically no controls and issues of selection bias but looks promising. https://www.ft.com/content/c0b7a2a1-e91e-44ef-9a96-55250cbbbaff

Evidence?

Very true. This caught my attention from earlier. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/13/walkers-lockdown-stay-at-home-after-woman-rescued-greater-manchester

The government has already provided guidance on how to interpret exercising - people should stay local and use open spaces near to their home where possible and not travel unnecessarily for exercise. The police used its legal discretion, taking account of this guidance in a way that is perfectly appropriate and proportionate. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-guidance-on-access-to-green-spaces

Of course. As is law in general. The police has the discretion to decide what is appropriate in a given case - there is no absolutely nothing preventing it from issuing a £60 fine for a first offence which I have no issue with at all.

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/c19/coronavirus-covid-19/the-new-police-powers/

That's my understanding too - someone's getting their knickers in a twist and a bit confused

Yeh. You read the NYT article and it emerges Trump was also worried about ruffling Chinese feathers both because it could have scuttled his trade deal with China but also because the US is so reliant on China for pharmaceuticals and protective equipment. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-response.html

Exactly, though both acts were stupid.

It’s not an either-or pal. I’m intensely sceptical of some of China's motivations and behaviour. I know the country very well and understand what it challenges the CCP brings (N.B. it was one of the main reasons I voted remain as I see the EU as a counterweight in economic and trade terms to China’s growing influence. It also explains why China, like Russia, is very upbeat about Brexit and the prospect of a divided Europe and weakened UK. But hey Brexiters are incapable of thinking one move ahead -let alone five). And yes I am very critical of WHO -Tedros Adhanom is a terrible DG (see his Mugabe gaff) and the WHO has been guilty of pussyfooting around China. But I also recognise the constraints under which it operates. It must work with a mix of democracies and authoritarian regimes. Like most international organisations, it has no real enforcement power -blame peoples obsession with national sovereignty in a world that is inherently interdependent for that pal. As a result it is wholly reliant on countries cooperation to achieve policy goals. If closed, secretive and frankly revisionist countries like China aren't going to play ball, that's the end of the story. To promote better information flows and cooperation, international organisations like the WHO have no alternative but to build goodwill and trust with countries like China; but close interaction can be a double-edged sword and the risk is that they unwittingly end up in bed with them. Its not a conspiracy but a messy fact of life. The failings of China and WHO of course do not excuse individual countries from responsibility - never mind the recklessness of halting funding for WHO as opposed to waiting and conducting a proper review once things calm down. Trump banned air travel from China. So what? If he was actually serious about combating the virus -rather than grandstanding with China- he wouldn't have repeatedly downplayed its seriousness (a 'hoax' and 'when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away' etc) and wasted critical time, in particular, the month of February. During that time, the White House made no effort to approach Congress for additional funding to prepare for the potential cost of wide-scale infection across the country or procure more equipment and ramp up testing and tracing. This is despite the fact that, in contrast to politicians over here (see the Reuters article), experts were warning him of a possibility of pandemic very early on. Rather per the NYT he was more upset about what he saw as unnecessary scaremongering and its impact on things like the stock market (see his run-in with the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases). Oxford University's Stringency Index shows that the US was one of the slowest countries to respond and was late in ramping up its efforts. The more Trump lashes out not only at China and WHO but also remember Governors of individual states, the more flustered, culpable and pathetic he sounds. And useful idiots like you are happily facilitating it.

I see you tested positive for stupidity JJ.

Not sure about the manslaughter charge but the fine is utterly fine by me too. It’s not like having a quick sit down at the local park where you can easily return home and indoors. This was an extravagant, premeditated 500 mile trip -premeditated in the sense the trip was going to take hours - anything could have happened en route which could have exposed others to wholly unnecessary risks.

Good lad.

Or as one government advisor summarised it “ herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

The classic was from Helen Whately, a health minister, who said mid-March that stopping mass gatherings didn’t have a large impact on the spread of the virus. That said, the same line was peddled by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer too. Wonder if they still agree...

Amazon has a better film back catalogue than Netflix imo. As for TV, Homecoming was very good as was looming tower. Good omens, the boys, mr robot, the first season (not the second) of the Jack Ryan series were all pretty decent. Some good sports documentaries too, though with a US focus, Renewal? So you wouldn’t keep Amazon Prime? Isn’t Prime Video bundled into that service?

You seemingly know everyone!

It also helps that the leader of one country is an actual scientist who laps up detail and planning; and the other is a reality TV star who was bankrolled by his daddy (and even then managed to go bankrupt several times).

It’s not inconsistent with aintforever’s argument either. Where does the WHO specifically state that SARS didn’t start in a wet market? It’s silent on the issue. All it says is that it likely jumped from one animal (possibly bats) to another (i.e. civet cats) infecting the first human in Guangdong. Aren’t there wet markets in Guangdong? Aren’t bats and civet cats bought and sold at wet markets? (On a side note, civet cat is a culinary delicacy in parts of China and in principle the type of prized possession you’d expect to see sold in a wet market; but that’s an argument for another day).

Have you read the haggadah pal?

Really sorry to hear LD. Sympathies go out to your wife too who’s already sacrificing plenty for the rest of us.

Thoughts are with you, your mum and family. Hoping it’s just a bit of oxygen support.

Well done Saints and Gao.

The WHO hasnt covered itself in glory, pussyfooting around China -notably ignoring Taiwan’s early warnings in December about transmission of the coronavirus between humans. At the same time, Trump dropped the ball massively -all his gloriously incriminating statements are on record. That set the context for the US response and it has been playing catch up ever since.

The message is less interesting than the messenger who delivered it - in a such defensive political environment, it’s a pretty big mea culpa coming the Chief Medical Officer and someone who could have steered policy in a different direction. You have the likes of Hancock talking about the UK’s structural lack of capacity to test which may or may not be the case; but as the Reuters report makes clear, even the resources at the UK’s immediate disposal such as Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine weren’t being put to work when they could have made a difference.