Asian Coronavirus Outbreak

[tomorton]

What if they are English?

Aren't efforts being made to repatriate British citizens stranded around the World?

These issues are media issues. If the government does not repatriate British abroad, they harangue a minister to know why. If they do repatriate Brits from abroad, they harangue another minister to know why.

Its not so much a vital need for public health protection, its a vital need for the media to attract viewers. That is their job after all, it is to attract interest, it is not to inform.

 

[Signalcalc]

What if they are English?

Aren't efforts being made to repatriate British citizens stranded around the World?

You've missed the point, I said nothing about who they are or why they are flying into the UK.

The point is about the point of a lockdown if 450,000+ people are arriving in a month to the UK unchecked?

 

[Signalcalc]

The point of testing would be to quarantine, to slow the spread, to protect the NHS, am I the only one getting this?

Is it not the reason why we are not allowed out unless it is essential?

Why don't we allow 15,000 people per day to be free from restrictions, to go to the park, to the beach?

We are allowing 15,000 people per day to mix with others from around the planet and then disperse into the general population, untested- how - exactly - is that slowing the spread?

 

[Pat494]

I wouldn't be complaining if I was stranded in a super holiday location like The Seychelles.

 

[tomorton]

The point of testing would be to quarantine, to slow the spread, to protect the NHS, am I the only one getting this?

Is it not the reason why we are not allowed out unless it is essential?

Why don't we allow 15,000 people per day to be free from restrictions, to go to the park, to the beach?

We are allowing 15,000 people per day to mix with others from around the planet and then disperse into the general population, untested- how - exactly - is that slowing the spread?

They're being advised to go straight home and stay there, like everyone else. Do you think think that another 0.7% population added into lockdown conditions is going to make much of a difference?

 

[Signalcalc]

I wouldn't be complaining if I was stranded in a super holiday location like The Seychelles.

It would sound idyllic however.......

It must be hell for the locals in holiday destinations, locked down indoors, not allowed on the beaches, no work, no income, dependent on external logistics for food and water supplies, with sub-standard healthcare I can't think of much worse.

I'm hearing that the Maldives could be introducing 'Covid-free' visas when places are opened up again. If all holiday destinations adopt this, then the holiday industry will remain suppressed for a long time yet.

 

[Signalcalc]

They're being advised to go straight home and stay there, like everyone else. Do you think think that another 0.7% population added into lockdown conditions is going to make much of a difference?

I should hope they do receive this advice, I haven't a clue what percentage would make a difference.

How about we allow 15,000 people a day to roam free within the UK on a rotating basis, and we must ensure that those 15,000 mix it up as much as possible before they are locked down again.

That seems reasonable to me as it is only 0.02% of the population, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[tomorton]

I should hope they do receive this advice, I haven't a clue what percentage would make a difference.

How about we allow 15,000 people a day to roam free within the UK on a rotating basis, and we must ensure that those 15,000 mix it up as much as possible before they are locked down again.

That seems reasonable to me as it is only 0.02% of the population, what could possibly go wrong?

Inevitably, even during a legally enforced lockdown, its very likely that 0.7% of the population will make an unnecessary trip at some point in any given month. That still represents a 99.3% compliance level which would be miraculously good for any law.

And we can assume that the majority of travellers arriving by air then makes only one over-land trip to their residence and that's the end of that.

I don't think the additional risk from 15,000 air travellers arriving per day is going to make any difference at all to the 63 million.

 

[Signalcalc]

Not forgetting the safety of border force personnel also.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1250522529048997889

 

[timsk]

You and Baron already have, did you both not say so in earlier threads. Do you really need a doctor to tell you. It's the season of influenza. And Timsk. . .

You'll have to explain this one please At' - completely lost on me!

 

[Signalcalc]

What is the UK Covid peak death rate so far? 1000 deaths a day?

That is only 0.0015% of the population, significant or not?

 

[timsk]

Oh how times have changed . . .
I used to cough to mask a fart, now I fart to mask a cough.

 

[tomorton]

What is the UK Covid peak death rate so far? 1000 deaths a day?

That is only 0.0015% of the population, significant or not?

That number is very significant, you're talking about people's lives.

But the added risk from an added 0.7% of the population is not significant.

 

[David Knight]

15 thousand a day, in the last 4 weeks, that will be at least 450,000 people that have arrived, unchecked !!

What is the point of a lockdown?

 

[Signalcalc]

What about the Uber drivers, taking airline passengers to their destinations, what about the ticketing, baggage handling, pilots, airline staff?

Are they immune already?

15,000 a day?

 

[tomorton]

What about the Uber drivers, taking airline passengers to their destinations, what about the ticketing, baggage handling, pilots, airline staff?

Are they immune already?

15,000 a day?

Isn't it just a week ago the government were being criticised for not repatriating British citizens and basically consigning them to survive or die on their own resources in foreign locations? I'm going to assume that most have rights to NHS care and on that basis alone its hard to see how any government could justify denying them entry into the country. The additional risk to the country as a whole is minimal.

 

[postman]

Inevitably, even during a legally enforced lockdown, its very likely that 0.7% of the population will make an unnecessary trip at some point in any given month. That still represents a 99.3% compliance level which would be miraculously good for any law.
...
I don't think the additional risk from 15,000 air travellers arriving per day is going to make any difference at all to the 63 million.

This whole pandemic with its 100's of thousands of deaths started with ONE infected person!

 

[counter_violent]

This whole pandemic with its 100's of thousands of deaths started with ONE infected person!

This is true and we still don't know who patient zero is and there's a very good chance that we never will. The Chinese have gone out of their way to destroy all evidence and traceability to the source of the outbreak. But it's ok, the yanks and others are looking into it.

 

[Signalcalc]

Isn't it just a week ago the government were being criticised for not repatriating British citizens and basically consigning them to survive or die on their own resources in foreign locations? I'm going to assume that most have rights to NHS care and on that basis alone its hard to see how any government could justify denying them entry into the country. The additional risk to the country as a whole is minimal.

Looks like you are making an assumption about the 15,000 that are arriving here each day, who are they?

All should be quarantined, for 2 weeks, as they were at the beginning of the pandemic.

Including the Romanians now arriving to work the fields.

 

[tomorton]

This whole pandemic with its 100's of thousands of deaths started with ONE infected person!

But we're talking about comparative risk increase here. As traders we are supposed to understand all this numbers and stuff.

Yes, its true that there must have been one infected Chinese person who was the first person to carry the virus in its form pathogenic to humans. So does that mean that adding one more person to the population of China next year repeats that risk in that they may be the first person to carry a new form of harmful virus? No.

Adding 15,000 air travellers per day to the UK's population of 63 million is an insignificant increase in risk to the UK's population.