Whole thread, worth reading. Ian Donald on the UK response. Expectation of UK leadership is that infection rate will be near-universal. Goal is to pretty well actively encourage it up-front, at least among younger people, as a form of curve-smoothing, and then try to clamp down later to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. If that's correct, this is one of the biggest gambles undertaken by any government in at least 70 years. Assumes that people will self-segregate enough that those people acquiring the disease will not spread it to vulnerable populations, and it assumes something that is yet unknown: that people who contract the disease are not vulnerable to reinfection (none to date, but that presumes no mutation). If they are wrong on either score, this will be a mass casualty event in the UK approximating that of the First and Second World Wars combined. That's one hell of a roll of the dice.
Whilst I have very little time for Boris Johnson’s politics, or for most of what appear to be his personal values, I always respect a leader who is willing to gamble; and successful gamblers tend to oppose the instincts of the herd. So if we are rolling the dice, so be it. Incidentally, Johnson has always aspired to be Churchillian. Churchill was a deeply flawed individual, whose career was largely characterised by costly blunders (for him and others). But for one short period in history, he was the right man at the right time. Step up Boris, show us your mettle - then hopefully get dumped on your arse at the next election, like your hero was.
Let's hope he's getting good advice. Churchill had a little more margin for error: he made a lot of damaging strategic errors while still avoiding a catastrophic defeat. I don't know whether we'll have that luxury.
He was responsible for the Gallipoli disaster in WWI wasn't he? He shafted the Catholics in NI certainly.
He’s listening to advice anyway. I’m quite cheered by the fact that he appears to be flanked by scientists. Of course, Churchill also sought allies abroad, wherever he could get them. This is no time for isolationism either.
Yes; Churchill pushed forward with the Gallipoli landing even after they'd lost the element of surprise. He also interfered in North Africa in WWII, with pretty disastrous results. He was a very good leadership figure at a time when that was needed, but he wasn't a great military mind, despite his self-perception.
Sent the troops into South Wales to break up a miner’s strike; abandoned the Poles to the Soviets in 1945. The list of his transgressions is pretty long, no doubt at all about that. Still, cometh the hour...
We'll see. Most other countries are banking on the opposite: limit spread up front, allowing the health care resources to deploy in full, and smooth things that way. I don't think anyone knows which route is preferable, but there are an incredible number of lives hanging in the balance.
Like Archers says at least it is the correct people making the call and we have to trust the experts as they will be much better informed unless of course they are just puppets for the Government.
It is very much like one of those disaster films you watch. Let's hope it ends like most of them and there is no 'Coronavirus II - The Virus Strikes Back' next year.
Large áreas of Spain have gone into lockdown. Schools closed, street markets not allowed, bars and restaurants closed, gymnasiums, swimming pools, libraries, sports venues. Two at a time at the chemist. Let's see if this eventually has the desired impact. I feel Spain is behind Italy in peaking and we don't know if it has yet in that particular country. It is ghostly here.
