SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Brwned]

You sit there making judgements about people as if the situation is piss easy for everyone.

What if there's a middle ground, noodle? What if the vast majority of people agree that the situation is very hard, and people disagree on whether people should be expected to make the hard choices that are in the best interests of society over themselves, essentially every time? Not in normal life, but just right now. The whole wartime spirit thing. There was incompetent government then too. There were selfish desires then too. But in the end people made sacrifices for the greater good, even if it had the most devastating consequences for themselves and those in their close circle. Why is it so unreasonable to expect individuals in a society to make those almighty sacrifices, for a limited period of time, if we really believe in the idea of the society? A functioning government makes it easier to believe in that, and it makes it easier to take those choices with the appropriate support system in place, but why should it be required?

It's a good point that's often overlooked when people seek comparisons. Western Europe is really inexperienced in dealing with any form of modern pandemic.

Yeah agreed. That said it's quite difficult to accept that inexperience given all the materials they had to work with. They didn't have South Korea's personal experience, but I think we should have expected to learn from their experience anyway. The notion of a global society and a particularly interconnected global scientific community suggests we should have. And even if the kind of "muscle memory" wasn't there, we did talk openly about how well prepared we were for such an instance. Independent scientific groups consistently said we were not ready while national governments said look at these big books we have and drills we run. I think it's fair to say the government fed us a load of shit on that and we should hold them accountable for that.

But then I'm sure the South Koreans said the same about MERS earlier this decade. Why couldn't we have learned from our neighbours in China a decade earlier? So clearly there is a degree of fallibility in the system that we haven't been honest about in the past, which has created false expectations which I think people rightfully judge governments by. The institutional knowledge of dealing with similar crises is clearly a useful tool. The cultural acceptance of these kind of interventions clearly facilitates things. I do think we are very keen to overlook those factors because we don't like the idea that there are some things about this crisis that we were always going to be unprepared for, based on how we decided to structure our societies.

What we can say for sure if there's another pandemic in a decade and Europe responds this way again, things will need to be evaluated from the ground up again. As @Pogue Mahone says, this idea of interconnected economies and wide open borders play an important role here. Largely restriction-free travel for leisure too. We either decide to accept that as a significant existential threat or we design a new set of principles to either respond to a crisis or to guard against future crises. But I understand why people would rather blame the government rather than blame the principles that elected those governments and guided their decisions on how to structure societies.

Have a very ill brother that likely wont make it another year. Have waited until this Christmas break to travel south from Scotland to see him for the first time in a while and now haven't got a clue what to do.

Yeah I'd say that's right up there with the toughest decisions to make in the pandemic. It depends on the specifics and it's an awful judgment call but there are definitely some scenarios where I think the risk of seeing them this time is greater than the risk of not seeing them next time.

 

[Berbaclass]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[NinjaFletch]

I agree with you the risks were there. They weighed up those risks and made those decisions. Still now, with a clearer idea of the impact of those choices, there is a lot of support for that notion in senior government, in education, among parents, etc. The opposition tends to be strongest among the people outside of that core stakeholder group, who have other priorities. That doesn't mean those priorities are wrong, but it does - in my view - reject the notion that it is an entirely avoidable blunder that demonstrates a failure of political leadership that is present in most major economies.

There is a reason so many of the countries have made that choice. The concerns about interrupting school long-term are not minor, and they're not unjustified. The question is which conern is bigger. That just isn't a no-brainer. I absolutely accept it might be the wrong choice, and I would lean that way at the moment. But I think we should also have the humility to accept that people who are much closer to the issue do have a different, deeper understanding of the consequences. The fact people are listening to their voices over others is not a ridiculous decision to make, it's a difficult judgement call in an uncertain situation.

We do not know the long-term effects it would have because there are not equivalent natural experiments in kicking kids out of school en masse for a prolonged period in a critical stage of their development. My perception from kids in my family is that most kids are much more resilient than their parents and guardians think, but how many kids is it ok to let fall through the cracks? How many infections are worth one kid going off the rails in their education at a critical juncture? That's not an easy question.

I think there's an element of talking at cross purposes going on here. The blunder, in my eyes, is in not making schools a priority, but in thinking they could come back without any trade off in other walks of life. That might well have been shutting pubs (and in my eyes, you might as well shut them if you can only go with your household unit, anyway), or it might have required more serious curbs in addition. I'm not sure it's totally helpful speculating just how much would have been needed because we haven't seen the modelling, but we know it was significantly more than what we did.

Instead, owing to the fact that we elected a court jester who would rather be popular than do the right thing, we tried to wing it and hope that Covid might not start spreading again if we really hoped that it wouldn't. Inevitably, the belief in the magic covid non-infection fairy was misplaced, and, also as inevitably, the same court-jester-who-would-rather-be-popular-than-do-the-right-thing Prime Minister delayed making the correct decision to lockdown, again, until it was too late.

By no means was Britain's the only government to become absurdly complacent during Summer, and other countries will surely have their own political reckoning on the same issues, but there was still nevertheless a significant failure to correctly evaluate the risks of schools returning and pre-emptively head them off.

I also suspect that the dichotomy between 'schools open' and 'schools closed' is unhelpful. It seems to me that we're in a position with this virus where those who need the most f2f teaching for developmental purposes are the least vulnerable and least likely to spread the virus. The rush to get university students back was particularly foolhardy, but you can easily envisage a situation where primary school pupils returned but not secondary schools, or secondary school students returned but not years 12 to 13. Where you draw the line is a matter of worthy debate, but a line could nonetheless be drawn.

 

[Brwned]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but UK academics are doubling down on the increased transmission of this strain. At least one of them at UCL - a key influencer in these decisions - seems to be ruling out the transmission being driven by behaviour alone, and their "moderate confidence" from last Friday now is "high confidence".

But scientists now have "high confidence" the mutation itself has made the virus more transmissible - though not more deadly.

Prof Judith Breuer, professor of virology and co-director of the division of infection and immunity at University College London, said it could have been down to changes in behaviour alone, but "all of that has now been accounted for".

Instead, she said, increased transmissibility of the new variant was likely to be down to "biological changes to the virus".

 

[rcoobc]

The point is really simple, on two levels. I'll just re-use the quote from NinjaFletch, but there many others, that contradict your belief that the government thought re-opening schools wouldn't have an effect on the pandemic:

It may well be required to close other things to allow schools to open. It's not that schools will have no impact, but we think the impact of schools is a worthwhile hit to take because schools are so important, and taking the hit on hospitality is worth it. You can find other views from other government personnel that fit closer to your perspective. The point is that you choose to ignore these ones that contradict your characterisation of "what the government seems to think".

The second point is that you think other governments have made the same "mistake", then your notion of common sense is not actually not that common. Not common for people who are forced to make those decisions and properly weigh up the pros and cons in the way you aren't forced to. Your perspective is what leads you to consider that the obvious choice. But you have people in here that work in education that vehemently reject your notion of the common sense approach to schools. Again, if you choose to only listen to the voices that agree with your view, then all of your views sound like common sense. There's an obvious flaw to that.

Just as Trump can go against the advice of Fauci, the UK Government can go against the advice of Whitty.

You are using Whittys comments as evidence that the Government knew there was risks to opening schools - Yet he clearly states that the governments may have to lock other areas down to allow it. Which they did not do. The fact that track and trace collapsed in September and we have had a positive R number ever since shows that they woefully underestimated the impact schools and unis would have

There were government ministers going on Radio 4 saying it was going to be fine - god knows how I'll find this, but they did.

As to the last bit - your definition of common sense is not one I agree with. You are taking us right off-topic with this fixation of this phrase, but I'll humour it.

Spoiler

You will never, ever, ever find someone who defines common sense as something that "a bunch of governments around the world do". That is not common sense.

Common sense requires two things; the common people, and sense. When I first used the phrase I touched on this; that every mother would tell them that when kids went back, infections would rise. Not just of COVID, but of every disease around. Every mother knew that there would be lots and lots of kids and families needing tests

And yet

The government lacked common sense. Maybe other governments did as well, I don't know. Governments deciding to do something isn't the definition of what common sense is.

Every mother could have told the government that more testing would be required come september. But the government didn't realise

They lacked common sense.

 

[rcoobc]

It just shows what a mess track and trace is. It should be track trace & test. Surely that would cut out the need to isolate, unless you test positive. Unfortunately when infection rates reach a certain level the already inadequate track and trace system becomes less effective as a tool to reduce infection rates. So much for Johnsons boast of a world beating track and trace system. Looks like track and trace is part of the "Hunger Buster" meal deal included with the oven ready Brexit one.

Indeed.

If he hadn't randomly had the opportunity to take the lateral flow test - he would have presumably kept coming to work and I might have COVID right now.

 

[acnumber9]

Anyone who actively wants schools (especially primary) to shut down are either ignorant or the lowest of the low.

We’ve moved to the demonisation of this as well now?

 

[Berbaclass]

Wonder what will be decided tomorrow then. I think they’ll go with half measures again instead of national lockdown.

The fact that they’ve decided to bring the meeting forward is promising that they might be learning from mistakes.

 

[Port Vale Devil]

Wonder what will be decided tomorrow then. I think they’ll go with half measures again instead of national lockdown.

Too little too late, anywhere else goes in full lockdown for Xmas then those who have already made plans will take no notice.

 

[Brwned]

I think there's an element of talking at cross purposes going on here. The blunder, in my eyes, is in not making schools a priority, but in thinking they could come back without any trade off in other walks of life. That might well have been shutting pubs (and in my eyes, you might as well shut them if you can only go with your household unit, anyway), or it might have required more serious curbs in additions. I'm not sure it's totally helpful speculating just how much would have been needed because we haven't seen the modelling, but we know it was significantly more than what we did.

Instead, owing to the fact that we elected a court jester who would rather be popular than do the right thing, we tried to wing it and hope that Covid might not start spreading again if we really hoped that it wouldn't. Inevitably, the belief in the magic covid non-infection fairy was misplaced, and, also as inevitably, the same court-jester-who-would-rather-be-popular-than-do-the-right-thing Prime Minister delayed making the correct decision to lockdown, again, until it was too late.

By no means was Britain's the only government to become absurdly complacent during Summer, and other countries will surely have their own political reckoning on the same issues, but there was still nevertheless a significant failure to correctly evaluate the risks of schools returning and pre-emptively head them off.

Yeah I think we are. This was the specific point I was responding to:

When Schools and Universities went back they seemed to think that it wouldn't cause a spike in cases. That it would have no effect.

He was saying he thinks the government believe there would be "no effect" to bringing schools and universities back. I think it is pretty clear that this government and almost every other major government knew schools would contribute to rises in cases, just like all forms of social interaction would, but allowing schools to open and balancing other elements of the economy would be the right balance in the wider interests of society. There was disagreement then and now about how much of an effect it would have, but it was consistently acknowledged it would have an effect.

If you're saying they didn't do enough to manage the spread, I agree. If you are saying they misjudged the effect it would have, I would partially agree. But I think there's room for a wide range of opinions on that. I do not think it is common sense. The views from teachers are very insightful, IMO.

Just as Trump can go against the advice of Fauci, the UK Government can go against the advice of Whitty.

You are using Whittys comments as evidence that the Government knew there was risks to opening schools - Yet he clearly states that the governments may have to lock other areas down to allow it. Which they did not do. The fact that track and trace collapsed in September and we have had a positive R number ever since shows that they woefully underestimated the impact schools and unis would have

There were government ministers going on Radio 4 saying it was going to be fine - god knows how I'll find this, but they did.

As to the last bit - your definition of common sense is not one I agree with. You are taking us right off-topic with this fixation of this phrase, but I'll humour it.

Spoiler

You will never, ever, ever find someone who defines common sense as something that "a bunch of governments around the world do". That is not common sense.

Common sense requires two things; the common people, and sense. When I first used the phrase I touched on this; that every mother would tell them that the when kids went back, infections would rise. Not just of COVID, but of every disease around. Every mother knew that there would be lots and lots of kids and families needing tests

And yet

The government lacked common sense. Maybe other governments did as well, I don't know. Governments deciding to do something isn't the definition of what common sense is.

Every mother could have told the government that more testing would be required come september. But the government didn't realise

They lacked common sense.

Saying things will be fine and saying there will be no negative effects are not the same. It is a statement of reassurance. When I went for surgery my dad told me things would be fine, which didn't mean this major surgery would be easy to get through or would have no after effects, but that I would get through it. And it was the right choice all things considered. Sometimes we are forced to make choices that have negative effects no matter which way we go, and we weigh up the risks and make a judgment call on which risks we can tolerate and what outcomes we desire. In many cases they are subjective choices based on limited evidence. Sometimes we get the risk calculations wrong and regret it afterwards. Sometimes the negative effects are worse than we expected but still better than the alternative. But they will still be fine.

Sometimes governments take that paternal tone because they believe it is what people need to hear to get through difficult moments. You can disagree on what the appropriate terminology is but all I can say is that what you're reading into things is not the only way to read into them. There are many, many people in this thread that do not agree with your assertion that "the government thought opening schools would have no effect". They are not all wrong. At worst, they just have a different perspective. There are many ways to look at complicated issues. They become simple when you only allow your opinion to be considered valid.

It very much reads like common sense is what people like me think. If you're comfortable with that definition then I can happily agree that they did not show common sense. And I'm glad they apply a different set of criteria to make those decisions.

 

[Berbaclass]

Too little too late, anywhere else goes in full lockdown for Xmas then those who have already made plans will take no notice.

It will be from Boxing Day.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Yeah I think we are. This was the specific point I was responding to:



He was saying he thinks the government believe there would be "no effect" to bringing schools and universities back. I think it is pretty clear that this government and almost every other major government new schools would contribute to rises in cases, but that allowing schools to open and balancing other elements of the economy would be the right balance in the wider interests of society.

If you're saying they didn't do enough to manage the spread, I agree.

So what balancing act did we do? Because, as far as I can remember, the 'balancing act' was 'really hope we can get away with doing nothing'. As @rcoobc says, other than Whitty, the talk from Conservative MPs was 'this will all go fine'. If anything, it was coupled with a push to get people back in to office's so people would buy Pret a Manger sandwiches again.

 

[prateik]

944 deaths in Germany in the last 24 hrs?
Some backlog or are things getting a lot worse?

 

[Port Vale Devil]

It will be from Boxing Day.

Yeah maybe so but wouldn’t be surprised if the feckwits announced on Xmas Eve that families couldn’t mix on Christmas Day. Anyway we have 7 of us for the day with 2 who have already had COVID and the rest are taking/have taken tests then isolating.

As someone who said above whose brother is ill @bsCallout and it could be his last Xmas then he should see him in my opinion. It is alright being the martyr but when it is family and it could be their last Xmas you can be a bit compassionate or as some of you would say, selfish.

Oh btw I have followed every guideline but there is no black and white and if you were in a certain persons position you would think differently.

 

[Brwned]

So what balancing act did we do? Because, as far as I can remember, the 'balancing act' was 'really hope we can get away with doing nothing'. As @rcoobc says, other than Whitty, the talk from Conservative MPs was 'this will all go fine'. If anything, it was coupled with a push to get people back in to office's so people would buy Pret a Manger sandwiches again.

Like I said, if you believe they got the balancing act wrong, I'm happy to agree with you on that. I am not arguing what the right set of decisions to make was. I think that's a far longer conversation that has been had too many times that at the very least people don't need to hear my views on again. I have taken up too much of the conversation space in recent days as is. The only point I was making is that they didn't open schools thinking it would involve no risks. They recognised that particular risk, along with the many other risks that have been ever-present, and moved forward with their strategy to balance the economic, social and medical concerns.

At various times the government has been criticised for striking the wrong balance on every single one of those things. There is no universal opinion on what the right balance of those things are. The varied opinions in this thread almost every day reiterate that. I do not believe my opinion on that is common sense or particularly valuable, personally. It's just a way to occupy our minds and spend our time with others.

But to suggest they can't see something this blindingly obvious is plainly untrue. They see it and they perceive it differently to you. That's normal. If you don't believe it is a difficult decision then I suspect you would have a different opinion if you were a member of one of the relevant stakeholder groups that overwhelmingly disagree with you. Our opinions are formed from our limited perspectives. I think it's reasonable to accept our limited perspective isn't necessarily the ideal perspective to see all sides of the story.

 

[rcoobc]

Just on how the Government wasn't prepared for Schools going back.. I've stumbled upon this video of the head of track and trace talking about the lack of capacity and foresight. Quite interesting.


Some snippits

we built our capacity plans based on sage modeling for what we should be preparing for

well i think that i don't think anybody was expecting to see the really sizeable increase in demand that we've seen over the course of the last few weeks so none of the modeling was that expect[ed]
... that's why i think we all have to think really hard about how we prioritize the use of these tests

MP: In order to to be there and to be to got to the test center and to be allocated a test they've had to declare that they've had symptoms you're saying 27 percent of people lied?
Dido Harding: well i completely understand why people are worried and scared and coming forward
MP: But you are saying that 27% of people lied to get a test?

On that last bit, that was not correct. I know for a fact that in August/September if you tried to book a test and, when it asks you "do you currently have symptoms of coronavirus" you select "NO", it would still let you book a test. Presumably because you can also use it if you need to get a test for some NHS operations.

 

[Relevated]

It will be from Boxing Day.

You reckon? Its being reported tier 4 in most places until jan 1st.

 

[Berbaclass]

You reckon? Its being reported tier 4 in most places until jan 1st.

Just from the reports I've seen tonight saying they've moved the meeting forward which was supposed to be the 30th but will be tomorrow. I think the intention behind that is to start from Boxing Day.

 

[Relevated]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Yeah, and then lockdown in jan. I'd be surprised if that didn't happen.

 

[Relevated]

Just from the reports I've seen tonight saying they've moved the meeting forward which was supposed to be the 30th but will be tomorrow. I think the intention behind that is to start from Boxing Day.

Maybe man. Who knows except for them... actually even they don't.

 

[Berbaclass]

Maybe man. Who knows except for them... actually even they don't.

The media are suggesting 'from Boxing Day'

I don't even think it will be national. I think they'll feck about again wasting more time.

 

[worldgonemad]

944 deaths in Germany in the last 24 hrs?
Some backlog or are things getting a lot worse?

The numbers in Germany have been getting steadily worse over the last few weeks. Deaths noticibly over the last 10 days or so.
This has surprised me as for most of the year Germany has been widely applauded as one of if not the 'best' European countries regarding how they have dealt with the pandemic.
I have wondered how they could open up sports grounds early and have only limited restrictions with apparently no consequence.
It seems to me that maybe around a month ago they reached a tipping point and rapidly lost control, perhaps test and trace were swamped, maybe fatigue set in and people were not so vigilant.
It could also be that perhaps they also have the new easily passed version of the virus, but did not detect it which accelerated quickly.
They have acted firmly though and its no surprise to me that they announced another, harder lockdown in the last week or so, and further ones I think after that. Also no surprise at all that no flights etc from the UK until they get a handle on what is happening.
The scary thing from my perspective is that we in the UK will be looking at higher numbers than 944 deaths in a day in the UK unless something drastically changes

 

[Jacko21]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Relevated]

If the UK locked down for ages and instead of the money they wasted, gave it to every citizen based on previous income... would that be possible like?

 

[Roger]

Well my MP is Mark Francois so any medical advice from that oaf would probably involve British leeches from British farms and something about gunboats.

Well put!

 

[Berbaclass]

The briefing continues

 

[rcoobc]

Yeah I think we are. This was the specific point I was responding to:

He was saying he thinks the government believe there would be "no effect" to bringing schools and universities back. I think it is pretty clear that this government and almost every other major government knew schools would contribute to rises in cases, just like all forms of social interaction would, but allowing schools to open and balancing other elements of the economy would be the right balance in the wider interests of society. There was disagreement then and now about how much of an effect it would have, but it was consistently acknowledged it would have an effect.

I may have been wrong to say the thought it would "no effect" although thankfully I prefaced that with "seemed" which it certainly did seem.

But, that they woefully underestimated the testing capacity required is well documented. And as their modelling for testing capacity was based on SAGE figures, it's fair to say they underestimated the impact schools would have, not just on testing requirements, but on the R Number too.

As I said, every mother I spoke to at the time said the same thing: "Wait until the schools go back."

Anyway, - let's call a truce on a single point in a 1285 page thread.

 

[sammsky1]

Wonder what will be decided tomorrow then. I think they’ll go with half measures again instead of national lockdown.

The fact that they’ve decided to bring the meeting forward is promising that they might be learning from mistakes.

I think UK Government should order a national army enforced curfew on New Years Eve!

 

[Berbaclass]

I think UK Government should order a national army enforced curfew on New Years Eve!

I'm pretty sure we don't have the manpower for that.

 

[Port Vale Devil]

I think UK Government should order a national army enforced curfew on New Years Eve!

Pubs are closed and I am sure that there are enough grasses neighbours to keep everyone in check. Feck me this isn’t the Philippines in the 70s.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Like I said, if you believe they got the balancing act wrong, I'm happy to agree with you on that. I am not arguing what the right set of decisions to make was. I think that's a far longer conversation that has been had too many times that at the very least people don't need to hear my views on again. I have taken up too much of the conversation space in recent days as is. The only point I was making is that they didn't open schools thinking it would involve no risks. They recognised that particular risk, along with the many other risks that have been ever-present, and moved forward with their strategy to balance the economic, social and medical concerns.

At various times the government has been criticised for striking the wrong balance on every single one of those things. There is no universal opinion on what the right balance of those things are. The varied opinions in this thread almost every day reiterate that. I do not believe my opinion on that is common sense or particularly valuable, personally. It's just a way to occupy our minds and spend our time with others.

But to suggest they can't see something this blindingly obvious is plainly untrue. They see it and they perceive it differently to you. That's normal. If you don't believe it is a difficult decision then I suspect you would have a different opinion if you were a member of one of the relevant stakeholder groups that overwhelmingly disagree with you. Our opinions are formed from our limited perspectives. I think it's reasonable to accept our limited perspective isn't necessarily the ideal perspective to see all sides of the story.

But, again, the argument that I'm making is that everything about their response and the mitigation they put in place (none), followed by national lockdown in November when cases inevitably surged suggests cases rose to numbers as a result of those sets of decisions to levels they weren't happy with. Nobody is saying that schools in isolation are responsible for it, but it played a part in that rise along with sectors they left untouched.

The circle I'm trying to square is how that is compatible with your insistence that this is possible if the government had a correct grasp on the level of risk their decision making in the summer had opened us up to, unless you think a month lockdown was the trade off and the reluctance to do it an act of political theatre.

 

[sammsky1]

Pubs are closed and I am sure that there are enough grasses neighbours to keep everyone in check. Feck me this isn’t the Philippines in the 70s.

No, we are just one of the very highest deaths : per population ratio nations on the planet.

Non compliance of the population will surely be one of the major contributors for that.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I think UK Government should order a national army enforced curfew on New Years Eve!

Let's not get carried away.

 

[Wibble]

Will it? Every time good news seems to come (vaccines) bad news seems to follow (new variant).

There is no reason to believe that this new variant will stop a vaccine from working at this stage.

 

[Wibble]

I’m sorry mate but it’s a false equivalency. My 27 year old self & my 25 year old girlfriend going to our 20-something year old mates is not going to kill anyone. I’m hardly going into an old folks home coughing on everyone am I.

You are very much going to kill someone. You just might not know them personally. The person who dies got it from someone who got it from someone else etc. If you don't get it then you can't pass it on directly or indirectly to someone who dies or suffers serious long term illness.

Missing a few beers with mates is a minor annoyance in comparison.

 

[Dancfc]

There is no reason to believe that this new variant will stop a vaccine from working at this stage.

Maybe not (yet), but the paranoid side of me can't help but think possible dejavu from "this new virus shouldn't be a problem" talk last January. I've tried to take a glass half full approach for pretty much the whole of this (even the first peak) but this is deflating.

 

[Port Vale Devil]

No, we are just one of the very highest deaths : per population ratio nations on the planet.

Non compliance of the population will surely be one of the major contributors for that.

Yeah but let the dickheads be dickheads but not let our kids open the curtains on Christmas morning and see the Army out patrollping the streets.

 

[sammsky1]

Yeah but let the dickheads be dickheads but not let our kids open the curtains on Christmas morning and see the Army out patrollping the streets.

I said New years Eve, not xmas eve or xmas day!

 

[sullydnl]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[massi83]

1. Re Germany, they have just failed to act for some reason. https://interaktiv.tagesspiegel.de/lab/karte-sars-cov-2-in-deutschland-landkreise/
Look at "altersgruppen", no excuse to come with a lot of restrictions on 19.10. at the latest (restaurants closed on 2.11.) And full lock-down on 2.11. at the latest should have happened. Per capita 80+ years olds have most infections in Germany now(!), so deaths follow.

2. The debate from the summer whether or not the virus has weakened was one of the silliest during this whole thing. No, it was always obvious or at least very very likely that it was because it was mainly young people infected. Somehow the governments didn't understand it will have quadruple effect when the cases keep increasing AND average age of infected gets older.

3. Acting soon is better for economy AND health. How is this still so hard to understand. Why has Europe set the limit at staying below ICU capacity. Set the limit much lower, like 10x lower (or to zero), there is no benefit in letting cases grow, none. At least to alow enough a level were test and trace works.

4. It is impossible to keep cases level for more than 2 weeks. Either they go up or down. So if they have been going up for 3 weeks, act. No matter how low you are when you started. Growth will not stop without action, and I repeat there is no benefit in acting late.

5. As I said before, Europe has accepted and normalised failure. One of the brightest posters we have @Brwned is doing this very same thing. Looking at all the big European countries and saying they can't all be incompetent, so this must be the best we can do. No, they all have failed. And others failure has helped them normalise their own failure.

6. @hmchan is correct about everything he says regarding China and WHO and Taiwan. How the hell corrupt Tedros still has his job. (Or narcissist Tegnell or incompetent Boris)

7. The cases started to increase in Europe already in July, people still don’t understand exponential growth.

8. Saying that Europe doesn't have experience in pandemics is okayish excuse for first wave. Second wave demonstrates that we learned nothing.

9. @Wibble was right and I was wrong regarding Australia's strategy. I thought they would fail and that Europe could control second wave in a reasonable manner.