[36chambers]

Font in the time of Coronavirus:

I was supposed to be heading to Bishop for the first 3 weeks of April . Now that's not happening I was thinking today about how reckless it would be to just drop everything and head to Font ASAP. The temptation is real.

Yeah man sorry for the travel ban, I don't think it's going to help anything. Also not sure it would hurt to come out to font but it may lock down for real soon, sort of halfway there already though you can still go to the boulders.

It's all good, we'll just have to reschedule Bishop for the end of the year or something. Hope you're getting good connies in Font!

[Johnny Brown]

Got to admit it made me chuckle. Be more fun working for Cummings than my current mediocre and cynical cunt of a director. (love you really xx)

I hear spunkgoat got the job and Fiend is his SPAD.

That's the one. Failing that perhaps one of the mods could change your subtitle to 'maverick freethinker'.

[haydn jones]

Spain seems to be in full lock down. I'm about to set of for France but just having breakfast in the car park at albarracin.

Police came and told everyone to not climb and isolate themselves in the van for 15 days. They told me it's fine to drive to France though.

[TobyD]

Spain seems to be in full lock down. I'm about to set of for France but just having breakfast in the car park at albarracin.

Police came and told everyone to not climb and isolate themselves in the van for 15 days. They told me it's fine to drive to France though.

Apparently Margalef has been fully closed off as well.  Give it a couple of weeks maximum for similar restrictions in the UK. 

[eastside]

Spain seems to be in full lock down. I'm about to set of for France but just having breakfast in the car park at albarracin.

Police came and told everyone to not climb and isolate themselves in the van for 15 days. They told me it's fine to drive to France though.

Wow. Yeah the Spanish police don't fuck around. Bailing is probably wise. Font is still climbable but maybe not for long.

[dr_botnik]

All ski resorts in France are being closed. My family woke up to a message from their hotel saying they must leave today (they only just arrived yesterday and don't have flights booked until friday)

[Ru]

What part of the government's reasoning or modelling do you not think is being relayed transparently Ru? Genuinely interested.

My take is the transparency is there...
 
I think they're currently wisely unwilling to state the complete most probable truth in plain language for fear of panicking people, and tipping into other social disorder problems right at a point that would make the situation worse.

They can't be transparent AND unwilling the state the truth in plain language, even if it is being done for a sensible reason.

Another example: two days ago herd immunity was an aim, today the department of health says it's a nice side effect if it happens, but has never been an aim.

Chief Scientific advisor: “Our aim is to try to reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it....About 60 per cent is the sort of figure you need to get herd immunity.”

Matt Hancock: ""Herd immunity is not a part of it. That is a scientific concept, not a goal or a strategy. Our goal is to protect life from this virus, our strategy is to protect the most vulnerable and protect the NHS through contain, delay, research and mitigate."

A further example: I have been involved, with my wife, in trying to plan how her GP practice will respond and deal with patients. There is virtually zero information on what the government plan is, whether they will be expected to deal with hospital overflow, the extent that they should deal with coronavirus patients etc. Hospital staff seem to be equally in the dark, including those doing the planning based upon what I have been told by a consultant anaesthetist.

None of that is transparent.

Whilst reducing panic in the general public is a wise aim, vagueness, contrary statements and statements that appear to be incorrect after a bit of mild scrutiny won't achieve that. The psychological health of those that will be dealing with the crisis is also important and just letting them guess what their role will be isn't a good idea.

[tomtom]

Good luck Haydn.

[Oldmanmatt]

I actually thought Hancock made sense this morning on Mar. At several points I wanted to throttle Mar or, at least, scream “shut up and let him speak!”

[eastside]

Well scratch what I said about Font being quiet, just rolled past cuvier parking and it was full, fuck that. Back at the gite with the top secret book trying to find a nice obscure locale for the day.

Also folks out everywhere bicycling, walking, convening. Not much social distancing in evidence which is a bit ominous

[Offwidth]

I openly admit I was wrong there, however, I can't assess what is not public and its a real shame this advice wasn't released ages ago to recieve proper peer review.

The paper Pete is quoting from was released in 2013.

You are seriously conflating my stated concerns about the sources of government advice now (leading to what I saw as a dangerous aim to build herd immunity) being open to peer critique alongside WHO advice, with one 2013 paper from one group involved in informing government?

My views are very similar to what Ru just expressed. On top of all that he said I was being all concerned at the start of this thread  while people were wise cracking; carefully explaining it was not like seasonal flu as it quickly grows to overwhelm ITU facility (before it happened in Italy). How the death rate will not be what the government expert predicted, at 1%, if hospitals can't cope, as WHO said 3 to 5%. How the government were foolish to move to weekly reports (U turn in one day) how the government were foolish to say retired staff would rush back to help (a survey showed only about 20% would be) how they overstated the readiness of the NHS to face whats coming, despite huge medical staff concerns about that.

In the end the communication issues Ru alludes to across the health systems might be one of the most dangerous factors. They clearly don't have the coordinated advice that they need. Do all the hospitals in hotspots have expansion plans with enough equipment; is there enough protective equipment for staff; is there a shortage of tests in some areas? What are GPs supposed to do?

On the new advice that they may just have to leave older infirm patients to die, so the system can cope.... I'd say its probably going to end up being a necessity... however imagine if one of them is your gran. Imagine if having sadly accepted that, the news then says some rich grans are being saved. We simply can't predict what horrible shit will come out of leaving vast numbers of the old and infirm to die.

I'm OK with treating government announcements on a simplistic basis to get the right message out without causing panic but what has happened has been often the opposite. I still think beyond wash your hands, the people of the UK don't get whats coming (if we don't modify our behaviour). I'm glad the 'U turn' means we are not aiming for herd immunity for now. I'm glad that given my low estimation of the qualities of Boris and Matt that they haven't messed things up even more. I am worried about Pritti when the army and police get involved in lockdowns. This isn't an anti tory view its anti incompetance.

Rant over.

[Offwidth]

I actually thought Hancock made sense this morning on Mar. At several points I wanted to throttle Mar or, at least, scream “shut up and let him speak!”

On the other channel I expressed the view that if a Hunt was a unit of Health Secretary competance, Matt looked to be struggling to make a deciHunt. I do think he is showing better than that now. It was maybe a massive lesson after saying on Question Time that he had been talking to the big supermarkets about food security, for them to broadcast the next day that he hadn't. The cabinet had maybe got used to telling lies with impunity. Despite having made bad SI jokes about his competance after that QT mess, I do think it must be horrible to be in his shoes at the moment.

[mrjonathanr]

Well scratch what I said about Font being quiet, just rolled past cuvier parking and it was full, fuck that. Back at the gite with the top secret book trying to find a nice obscure locale for the day.

Also folks out everywhere bicycling, walking, convening. Not much social distancing in evidence which is a bit ominous

Apremont's nice.

[Ru]

Well scratch what I said about Font being quiet, just rolled past cuvier parking and it was full, fuck that. Back at the gite with the top secret book trying to find a nice obscure locale for the day.

Also folks out everywhere bicycling, walking, convening. Not much social distancing in evidence which is a bit ominous

Get a rope and go to Saussois (about 1 1/2 hrs away) and do the classics like Chimpanzodrome. I didn't see another climber when I was there. It was post-apocalyptically quiet, peak holiday season.

[lagerstarfish]

Well scratch what I said about Font being quiet, just rolled past cuvier parking and it was full, fuck that. Back at the gite with the top secret book trying to find a nice obscure locale for the day.

Also folks out everywhere bicycling, walking, convening. Not much social distancing in evidence which is a bit ominous

Buthiers Canard for some soloing

[Offwidth]

 Some news from the UK front line staff

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/coronavirus-senior-nhs-consultant-speaks-out

[tomtom]

Well scratch what I said about Font being quiet, just rolled past cuvier parking and it was full, fuck that. Back at the gite with the top secret book trying to find a nice obscure locale for the day.

Also folks out everywhere bicycling, walking, convening. Not much social distancing in evidence which is a bit ominous

I wonder if the Font dogging boards are full of conversations about what to do!... :D

[petejh]

What part of the government's reasoning or modelling do you not think is being relayed transparently Ru? Genuinely interested.

My take is the transparency is there...
 
I think they're currently wisely unwilling to state the complete most probable truth in plain language for fear of panicking people, and tipping into other social disorder problems right at a point that would make the situation worse.

They can't be transparent AND unwilling the state the truth in plain language, even if it is being done for a sensible reason.

Another example: two days ago herd immunity was an aim, today the department of health says it's a nice side effect if it happens, but has never been an aim.

Chief Scientific advisor: “Our aim is to try to reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it....About 60 per cent is the sort of figure you need to get herd immunity.”

Matt Hancock: ""Herd immunity is not a part of it. That is a scientific concept, not a goal or a strategy. Our goal is to protect life from this virus, our strategy is to protect the most vulnerable and protect the NHS through contain, delay, research and mitigate."

A further example: I have been involved, with my wife, in trying to plan how her GP practice will respond and deal with patients. There is virtually zero information on what the government plan is, whether they will be expected to deal with hospital overflow, the extent that they should deal with coronavirus patients etc. Hospital staff seem to be equally in the dark, including those doing the planning based upon what I have been told by a consultant anaesthetist.

None of that is transparent.

Whilst reducing panic in the general public is a wise aim, vagueness, contrary statements and statements that appear to be incorrect after a bit of mild scrutiny won't achieve that. The psychological health of those that will be dealing with the crisis is also important and just letting them guess what their role will be isn't a good idea.

That's an understandable point of view but I think you're letting *relatively* unimportant short-term details (I'm not suggesting they're not important) get in the way of what (to me) seems obvious. What's obvious is: this is a much more highly contagious and resilient virus than other recent pandemics; there is no immunity and no vaccine yet; and therefore you cannot prevent most of the population catching it whatever you try to do. The virus will stop when either: there's a vaccine, there's immunity, or a large enough number of hosts have died.
The public are going to know the score pretty soon because it will be obvious, and tory/labour or the minutiae of messages won't have made any difference in the long term outcome.
 
The public are being drip fed the reality from what I can see. The transparency is there if you want to see it I think, most people just don't want to fully understand it yet. That seems sensible, because it's quite a scary prospect to inform people that they are very shortly - within 2 weeks - about to go from living in a fully-functioning western democracy to potentially a martial-law state with high levels of death around them including people we all know and love, caused by an invisible killer, a health service buckling under the pressure, most of the rest of the world in the same situation, the global economy in recession, and political turmoil caused by the fall-out. But that's where I think we're probably going to end up this year. Hopefully it will be relatively short-lived, somewhere between 6 months and 2 years.

To my mind it's a system and we know some rules.

Rules
The pandemic moving through the UK will take 6+ months. There probably will be subsequent waves.
It can't be stopped. It can only be delayed.
You will probably catch it, most people probably will.
The under 60 group probably won't be killed or hospitalised. A small minority of under 60s will get very ill or die. 
The over 60 group still 'probably' won't be killed or hospitalised. A large minority of over 60s will get very ill or die.
You can treat the group with 'underlying health conditions' (heart disease, cancer, COPD etc.) roughly the same as the over-60 group in terms of risk.
You cannot prevent infection. Full isolation is impossible due to length of time required: 6+ months. And there being no immunity and currently no vaccine upon coming out of isolation.
You can delay getting infected.
A % of population will be infected and die either early on or later.
Critical care will reduce deaths.
Immunity will reduce deaths.
Health service can be re-formulated to quite a large degree, within constraints of equipment and people.
# of lives saved by critical care is reduced by overwhelming with cases in a short period of time.
Immunity available from two sources: following infection or vaccine.
Immunity gained from infection takes less than 12 months. Currently unproven but probable.
Vaccine will take a minimum of 12 months.


Within the bounds of those rules (and others I've no doubt missed), we're left with few options and none of them pleasant especially if you're in the highest risk group. Best option to minimise number of dead is to delay the infection of the group who will have most deaths (and place most pressure on the health care system). Results will depend on the isolation being as total as possible for as long as possible, while being as humane as possible. Meanwhile carry on with a skeleton-society of people in the lower risk group.

The alternative option is to isolate the whole population for 6-12 months. Why would you try this alternative when:
a. it isn't possible.
b. it isn't required (to minimise numbers of deaths).


Offwidth, complaining about the ins and outs of political messages in this instance strikes me as about as productive as complaining about the tide coming in. Linking to media reports that quote consultants saying they don't think the NHS is prepared to cope with this pandemic - really?, you don't say! I'd be stunned if they could. Can any health service ever be prepared for the scale of this pandemic? I highly doubt it.   
I think you can always critique. The politicians are being led by the scientists, and I don't see any attempt to do anything but their best effort in the face of forces far more powerful than nations. Like you say, the public are going to know the score pretty soon.
 

[Ru]

That's an understandable point of view but I think you're letting *relatively* unimportant short-term details (I'm not suggesting they're not important) get in the way of what (to me) seems obvious.

Well I'm not really letting it get in the way of anything, I'm just chatting about stuff I have thought. I wasn't trying to rank the most important things about the Covid-19 outbreak.

I disagree about the transparency.

I do think the lack of any real direction being given to the health services is an issue. Drip feeding the public is one thing, drip feeding those that will be expected to deal with it and are being denied any proper opportunity to prepare, practically and mentally, is another. There are practical healthcare changes that will need to be made and the NHS is sitting on its hands, possibly only 2 weeks away from a complete meltdown such as in Italy, because it has no idea what the plans are. The reality is that entire hospitals may need to be repurposed into covid-19 only units, which won't happen over night.

Where you say you would be stunned if the NHS could be ready for the outbreak, it currently has 4k ICU beds at 95% occupancy. Germany has 25k (for approx 25% bigger population) at 60% occupancy and is also concerned it's not ready. Clearly those are completely different levels of "not ready."

[JamieG]

The transparency is there if you want to see it I think, most people just don't want to fully understand it yet.

Not that I particularly disagree Pete that this is very serious and the outlook is bleak. But that is a very weird definition of transparency. Being transparent would be saying exactly what is on the table, no squinting required. What you’re describing is reading between the lines of arguably slightly opaque messaging. If you can read between the lines it’s obvious this is serious. A lot of people won’t be reading between the lines and taking the message at face value.

[Offwidth]

You've gone all Trump from intially accusing others of exaggerating how bad this will be, to doing it yourself. I'm sorry but if you listen to most epidemiologists,  medical staff, or numerous other experts there is loads that can be practically done, from nationally to the front line, that isn't being done currently.  Matt says this am they will buy extra ITU ventilator kit... where from?...  they are the international medical equivalent of supermarket bog roll. This is not an attack on the government as broadly speaking in their public face they have done OK, especially good in the first few weeks,  but their 'U turns', as best case scenarios have been lost, were needed, and they must have clear accepted public justifications for their actions. In particular (my biggest concerns) are the DHSC really need to listen more to the front-line staff  and  'get its act together' to ensure clear messages and action plans to primary and secondary care. They should be running 'full-on, war-time-style', emergency planning The stated aim for herd immunity was a terrifying lapse from the CMO and CSA in the current situation. It was rightly critised by  WHO, the previous tory Health Secretary and even some of the experts they based their case on. They now thankfully say this is not the aim.

[Offwidth]

Coel has posted a link on the infection rates of the young in  Korean data on the other channel.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1239041092978343937

Robert Durran also posted some nice educational visualisation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/?fbclid=IwAR1r02wIsrH8eY-KK2DPWJ3PCfX298Eo6EOBV795HeRJn4ODN54yUeOahvc

[tomtom]

Coel has posted a link on the infection rates of the young in  Korean data on the other channel.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1239041092978343937

Robert Durran also posted some nice educational visualisation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/?fbclid=IwAR1r02wIsrH8eY-KK2DPWJ3PCfX298Eo6EOBV795HeRJn4ODN54yUeOahvc

Not saying these are wrong - but are they normalised for population group? Italy has a really old (3rd oldest on world) pop distribution....

[Offwidth]

S Korea is maybe strange in how the virus spread as the early rapid growth was in a cult... I've no idea of the cult demographic.

Another opinion on herd immunity has been posted today.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidemiologist-britain-herd-immunity-coronavirus-covid-19

Plus some Trump being Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/15/trump-offers-large-sums-for-exclusive-access-to-coronavirus-vaccine

I noticed today someone smote me for posting too many Guardian links.... it and the BBC are by far the best quality free online UK news resources and the BBC seems to be being really careful at the moment with government stuff (I dont blame them) so I apologise, but what choice is there?

[mrjonathanr]

Offwidth: you are free to post links to whatever you want mate- Pete hasn’t imposed martial law yet.