ChatterBank2 mins ago
It Would Never Work Here
Something tells me the Icelanders are being modest. Based on the population comparison, the UK would need to boldly build up an approximately 32,000 strong tracing team within a very few weeks and get the co-operation of the public to help with its work. Which is easier, for one person to find a lost needle in a given area or 100 people to search for 100 lost needles in 100 times the area ? An immediate recognition would need to without the slightest hesitation acknowledge that whatever it costs is worth it. Or is it really easier for 100 people to build and pay for a house than for 10,000 people to build and pay for 100 houses ? I am unconvinced of the benefit of being a small group unless the smaller one is significantly better organised and more imaginative/determined than the larger one. On the other hand, being truly united in purpose will be a distinct advantage as will having a certain preparedness at different levels (physically and culturally). And there we have some reasons why not......
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by KARL. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
TTT - did you read the second sentence? The Tories might well struggle to retain power next election as they will, wrongly, get the blame for the financial status we'll be left in by the virus and something like that, fuelled by certain newspapers, could tip the balance. They need to be very careful or we could be in for a disaster.
yes ZM to start with but as testing becomes more common they will be red or green after testing. Over tim the system will get ever more accurate. If a green gets near a red or amber they go amber and have to get a test and then they are set green/red accordingly it works like a neural net spreading, ironically, like the virus itself. Eventually reds will become ever more scarce.
bhg; "TT - did you read the second sentence? The Tories might well struggle to retain power next election as they will, wrongly, get the blame for the financial status we'll be left in by the virus" - yes indeed which is why the TTI process will be introduced. The economy should then recover in the 4 years to the next election. I cannot see Labour making a comeback regardless.
//Would we put them in a hotel/detention centre for 2 weeks? We could test them and then hold them for 3 days then test again if negative the first time.
There's at least as much of a case for pulling out and quarantining those who breach lockdown here.//
I think you're somewhat missing my point (if not the point), f-f.
It's quite true that it makes as much sense to insist on quarantine for lockdown breakers here as it does to insist on it for recent arrivals (especially if they have come from countries less badly hit than the UK). But....the lockdown cannot go on indefinitely. It is being maintained currently not by enforcement or threat of punishment but by consent and compliance. Currently people cannot leave their home to visit a friend or relative. Mrs NJ's sister lives a couple of miles up the road and she would like to see her for various reasons but appreciates she cannot at present. Meanwhile in the paper she reads reports like you have mentioned of people travelling halfway round the world to the UK to visit friends and relatives. Eventually, if that persists, Mrs NJ's patience will exhausted and she, along with millions of others will simply ignore the lockdown. I don't think anybody in government has taken the trouble to establish just how furious people are (those that know about it, that is) when they cannot visit relatives a few miles away but they see (say) a family of 25 pitching up at Heathrow to stay with their relatives. It's bad enough watching politicians break the rules but when they see "ordinary" people doing the same the integrity of the lockdown will be shot to bits.
All this talk of testing and smartphone apps is smoke and mirrors. The government cannot even get PPE equipment to health professionals in a timely fashion. The chances of them (a) developing an app that works, (b) getting people to use it and (c) enforcing restrictions if they don't are pies in the sky. The Icelandic idea is great - for Iceland. But more people live in my Local Authority area than live in Iceland and the comparison is not appropriate.
There's at least as much of a case for pulling out and quarantining those who breach lockdown here.//
I think you're somewhat missing my point (if not the point), f-f.
It's quite true that it makes as much sense to insist on quarantine for lockdown breakers here as it does to insist on it for recent arrivals (especially if they have come from countries less badly hit than the UK). But....the lockdown cannot go on indefinitely. It is being maintained currently not by enforcement or threat of punishment but by consent and compliance. Currently people cannot leave their home to visit a friend or relative. Mrs NJ's sister lives a couple of miles up the road and she would like to see her for various reasons but appreciates she cannot at present. Meanwhile in the paper she reads reports like you have mentioned of people travelling halfway round the world to the UK to visit friends and relatives. Eventually, if that persists, Mrs NJ's patience will exhausted and she, along with millions of others will simply ignore the lockdown. I don't think anybody in government has taken the trouble to establish just how furious people are (those that know about it, that is) when they cannot visit relatives a few miles away but they see (say) a family of 25 pitching up at Heathrow to stay with their relatives. It's bad enough watching politicians break the rules but when they see "ordinary" people doing the same the integrity of the lockdown will be shot to bits.
All this talk of testing and smartphone apps is smoke and mirrors. The government cannot even get PPE equipment to health professionals in a timely fashion. The chances of them (a) developing an app that works, (b) getting people to use it and (c) enforcing restrictions if they don't are pies in the sky. The Icelandic idea is great - for Iceland. But more people live in my Local Authority area than live in Iceland and the comparison is not appropriate.
So there seems to be an inclination toward dismissing what has worked in Iceland, that it would not work in the UK because of the UK's much larger population. What do we then expect of an island population which is a quarter of Iceland's - it should do at least as well if not better (and why not ?) ? Take a look at this:
https:/
cassa333 at 11.09 is in my opinion correct and so is New Judge at 13.59, the UK knows what is required but nevertheless fails ("bottles it" as cassa said, NJ said they simply can't get it together). One has to ask the question whether, if the British Isles (Isle of Man included) were populated by sixty-odd million Icelanders, they would have done any worse than the 370 thousand of them in Iceland. The point seems to be more what culture/mentality is at work and whether those in charge have the vision, are sufficiently organised, determined, etc. rather than simple numbers. It is no good to point to others having done even worse or resorting to spurious/unsubstantiated conclusions which have an awful lot in common with excuses of various kinds. Any example looking significantly poorer than the best is by definition poorer - the greater the difference the worse it gets.
Iceland's primary schools and/or childcare centres were never closed unless infection arose among the staff (then all quarantined together with individual households). Iceland was never closed to travel in or out and as the link shows, blanket quarantining of arrivals is quite a new requirement. There has never been a "lockdown" on the UK's scale and people have been able to gather in numbers of up to 20. The first death in Iceland was that of an Australian tourist who, with his wife, presented himself at hospital so close to death that he died within a few hours (underlying health problems).
https:/
cassa333 at 11.09 is in my opinion correct and so is New Judge at 13.59, the UK knows what is required but nevertheless fails ("bottles it" as cassa said, NJ said they simply can't get it together). One has to ask the question whether, if the British Isles (Isle of Man included) were populated by sixty-odd million Icelanders, they would have done any worse than the 370 thousand of them in Iceland. The point seems to be more what culture/mentality is at work and whether those in charge have the vision, are sufficiently organised, determined, etc. rather than simple numbers. It is no good to point to others having done even worse or resorting to spurious/unsubstantiated conclusions which have an awful lot in common with excuses of various kinds. Any example looking significantly poorer than the best is by definition poorer - the greater the difference the worse it gets.
Iceland's primary schools and/or childcare centres were never closed unless infection arose among the staff (then all quarantined together with individual households). Iceland was never closed to travel in or out and as the link shows, blanket quarantining of arrivals is quite a new requirement. There has never been a "lockdown" on the UK's scale and people have been able to gather in numbers of up to 20. The first death in Iceland was that of an Australian tourist who, with his wife, presented himself at hospital so close to death that he died within a few hours (underlying health problems).
