Gutless? I'd say the opposite. They've got the guts to go a different way to everyone else. I'm no fan of Boris, but it sounds like he's taken on board advice from experts and is trying to minimise disruption. The virus is going to spread whatever he does. I'm actually going to praise him here. If he gets it wrong, he's going to have a lot of questions to answer. He must know this.
They also say the real number infected could be between 5 to 10 thousand. I'm no mathematician or doctor but those stats for a highly contagious virus with no known vaccine dont look all that good to me.
Johnson was honest...most will get it and some of us will lose loved ones (by extension, some of us will die). The press conference provided a clear explanation of the UK's rationale. There should be a reason for doing things...not just knee jerk reactions so you appear to be doing something...even if it makes little sense.
Clear to me that policy is following medical and social guidance Another impact of closing schools is that a lot of working parents will then have to stay home which will affect the health and care system Mrs S would lose both her Band 6 Sisters. Not a great idea with a health crisis brewing eh?
Considering that the virus can be transmitted to people by being in close contact, and breathing in the same air as them for 10 minutes or so, it's an odd call to not ban large gatherings at the very least.
Large gatherings outside are not going to produce large contaminations. That has been said numerous times by scientists.
Yep but my worry is say 90,000 are at Wembley for a game between Southampton and Newcastle, all those fans will come from different directions, using public transport, car parks, petrol stations, public toilets, eateries etc. That increases the chance of 90,000 people catching it on the way to or from the ground that wouldn't have been at risk. Not saying the scientists are wrong at all, but there are other factors. Using my above example then pubs would show it and the risk is raised there. Really tricky one as damned if you don't and damned if you do.
Apparently a person would infect 2 to 3 people on average and the probability is that few people inside a stadium will have the virus. There's obviously risk involved but there's risk in pretty much everything you do in life. At some point the public will be banned but they want the peak of the impact as far away from winter as possible.
I think they are just playing safe. The UK has a large elderly population, like several countries in Europe. I could make a point about Brexit here, but I'm not going to. Also, the more they can smooth out the contamination graph, the better the NHS can cope.
You might not have that much spread via aerosol, but large gatherings result in many people touching the same surfaces. The virus survives an atypically long time on surfaces, which increases transmission. Think of an outdoor concert. Even if you aren't catching it from the person next to you, what happens when they buy something to drink? They're likely to touch a point of sale machine, which will then be touched by many other people. Unless the vendor is meticulously disinfecting the machine after every sale (spoiler: they aren't), that's a major disease vector.
How does that translate to large gatherings in stadia concourses? More open than a bar, but not as open as the stands.
They could close the bar and diner stands in the concourse. That way people go straight into the stand.
You could close all the food and drink kiosks in the concourse. That way you don't have people exchanging money or mingling in the concourse for too long.
You could, but people are going to touch things. Walls, seat rests, each other, it's a natural consequence of putting a lot of people in close proximity. Attempting to minimize disruptions in what are effectively luxuries -- recreational activities are great, but they sure as hell aren't essential -- is just silly at this point. It's a global pandemic!