hypochondriac

Maybe if enough people didn't pay the mortgage. The point is if I knew there was a significant chance I would die if I went out to work then I wouldn't go and I'd take my chances with the mortgage. You'd like to think that the banks would be a bit understanding given the circumstances but if it came down to it I'd certainly risk eventual loss of my house over forcing myself to work and risking death.

Imagine the political fallout if anyone contracted the virus due to that. Some things are more important than football.

If it really was life or death then I just wouldn't pay my rent or mortgage for the duration of my isolation and take my chances. They've cancelled all mortgage payments in Italy I believe, would be good if they did something similar here.

Then I would imagine that the curve would have been flattened so those who subsequently get it can be looked after more effectively and hopefully herd immunity would have grown to the point that they are less at risk.

What do people mean by can't afford to? Everyone can claim benefits and if you absolutely had to you could live off the most basic of rations for a few months. I'm not suggesting fora second that that would be easy or desirable but if you absolutely had to and you knew it would keep you alive then you absolutely could survive.

Eh? If I knew there was a high likelihood I could save lives and that I wouldn't die I'd stay home! Why would you want go out, catch the virus and possibly due or take up resources which could cause someone else to die? 4 months over the course of your life is tiny.

Of course it's not easy but when faced with literal death it's probably worth the hardship yes?

Maybe he'd have to make alternative arrangements for 4 months? Surely worth it to save your life?

Because it's possibly 4 months of your life to save potentially a decade or two? If that's the attitude then really why bother slowing the economy at all? Just let all the over 70s pass away then it's not a worry.

I know it's a real imposition and hardship but if the choice is literally between dying and staying alive in isolation for four months then surely it's worth the cost? I know it doesn't apply to me but I'm pretty sure I'd just do it if it meant staying alive.

Look on the bright side. If you get it and it's serious, at least you will go knowing that you've made a small contribution towards painting Boris in a negative light. Let's hope not though eh?

That's true but I think the thinking was that you weren't infectious at that point? I could have read that wrong though. Like you say though it's very early so still a lot of unknowns. Let's pray that in general you're immune for a reasonable period of time.

Mine is slightly older but I feel your pain.

Try doing it with a young child. I'm on day three and it's already awful.

Indeed. Mine and it seems most sensible people's stance is admitting that they don't have enough information to know about this more than the experts advising the government, hoping that they are right whilst admitting a bit of nervousness about the path we are taking. Soggys stance is to lambast and criticise Boris Johnson personally for listening to the advice of his own scientific experts and suggesting he either isn't doing anything or he's doing the wrong sort of things (he hasn't actually said which one). This response appears to primarily be because he's a Conservative and therefore evil. I wonder if given the choice between the UK experts being correct and lives being saved or then being wrong and losing lots more lives but Boris looking silly which one soggy would choose? I bet he'd have a pause before answering which tells you all you need to know really.

Also you'd be relegating Bournemouth by one goal and villa could possibly only be relegated because they have a game in hand. Wouldn't be fair.

Pot meet kettle!!!

Conversely, Johnson's response as informed by the experts could save thousands of lives and still the usual suspects on here woild be slagging him off. You don't have a clue about what the correct strategy is yet tmypi are the one mouthing off in every other post about how awful the UKs response is.

That's a viral post from twitter yesterday by a professor.

I think what they are thinking is that by introducing more draconian measures at a later point you'll be able to make them stick more effectively for a shorter period without overwhelming the NHS. It's a big assumption though and if their initial inaction leads to more deaths than necessary they will get slaughtered for it. I assume these experts are staking their careers on being right so it's not a path they would be taking lightly.

There's currently too many unknowns. Much depends on the assumption that the Chinese part of the pandemic is now over. If it resurfaces again in China and South Korea then clearly that's a different situation and I'm guessing no one really knows at the moment.

We don't have all the data, we don't know what the best strategy is for the UK based on the availability of beds, the age of the population, our behaviours, the desire to keep deaths in the medium and long term to a minimum. You know precisely nothing about the qualifications of the team of people advising our current strategy which is based on our very specific set of circumstances. In your weird little world it's the evil tories led by Boris making this sort of thing up as he goes along when the reality is clearly the complete opposite of that. Our strategy may be wrong but it is clear that the people actually qualified in epidemiology in the UK have not spoken out publically against the current strategy and we have clear reasons for doing what we are doing. Putting it another way, do you really think that the government would do something so different from other countries without following clear advice and without a clear justification? Why would they take the political risk of just doing something different for no reason? Very obviously they are being advised by extremely qualified experts about what to do. Like I said, you just hate it because there's a Conservative government in charge, let's just be glad that the likes of yourself and most of twitter aren't in charge of anything.

You've said there are three letters. Kindly show me which letter you are referring to so we can discuss it properly. Presumably you are referring to a letter that contains signatures of individuals who are more qualified to discuss this strategy than the team of scientists that the government are following.

Where did I refute that there was a link? You need to be clearer about which specific letter you are talking about that is signed by experts who are more credible in this field than the team of epidemiologists currently shaping the government's response.

Whitty and Vallance- people who head up a team of many scientists- have no talent other than getting themselves elected to parliament? Fancy that!