Were they not doing drive-thru only anyhow?
Fixed
Of the 2 in Cork City. One was closed altogether and the other was takeaway only.
Iâm going to drive up to my grandparents and listen to him moan about how much of a bunch of fannies we all were and love every second of it
Nasty post
Bikers, the biggest shower of soft cunts you will ever come across. No offense @flattythehurdler
1 Like
Iâll do that the next morning, with an outrageous hangover
1 Like
Just fucking close without announcing it.
Whatâs going to happen now? A load of fucking mouth breathers queueing at McDonalds and using the touch screen to order
This is enormous. We are literally at a tipping point. Another two solid weeks and we are very much on the front foot.
We take our eye off the ball, though, we we might as well start again
Donât forget the 5 day lag in tests lads.
1 Like
Lovely day in Ballycastle.
1 Like
As the fight to suppress the coronavirus pandemic grew ever more urgent last week, a two-year-old video clip from a literary festival in Wales posed an awkward question for officials still scrambling to stem the tide of infection. In May 2018 a prominent professor at Edinburgh University predicted with uncanny precision how the next major threat to UK health would evolve.
Someone in China would become infected by an animal, Devi Sridhar, the universityâs professor of global public health, told an audience at the Hay Festival in Hay-on-Wye. Then they would get on a plane to Britain. If a specialist as well connected as Sridhar saw the coronavirus coming two years ago, why were we not better prepared?
The daughter of a pair of Indian doctors who emigrated to America in the 1970s, Sridhar was born in Florida and studied medicine at the University of Miami. In 2003 she won a Rhodes scholarship and came to Britain to study at Oxford.
There she became friendly with another American visitor who shared her interest in the worldwide fight against contagious disease. Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary, had followed in her fatherâs footsteps to Oxford to work on a thesis that was eventually entitled The Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria: A Response to Global Threats, a Part of a Global Future.
The two women co-authored a book that took them to the Hay Festival for a joint talk. Last week a short video of Sridharâs remarks surfaced on Twitter, and an element of remarkable prescience was added to the fevered public debate over the rampaging virus. âWhat a prediction!â marvelled one viewer of the video. âSuperb and prophetic,â added another.
During a discussion of government preparedness for serious health threats, Sridhar argued for a global collaborative approach. âThe largest threat to the UK population is someone in China who has been infected from an animal,â she declared. âThen they get on a plane to the UK. What good is it for the UK to be worried [only] about whatâs happening here? Itâs about those interconnections across the world. If you want to solve those problems, you canât do it on a go-alone approach.â
Like many other parents, Sridhar, 35, took her two children out of school last week and began working from home, where she talked at length about the insight that surfaced on that Twitter clip. She and other experts also discussed the governmentâs sudden change of strategy in what many consider a long-overdue effort to slow transmission of the virus and prevent the collapse of the NHS.
Are the increasingly severe lockdown measures too harsh, too late, too panicky, not enough? How long will they last, how will we know when we are safe, and can we trust the governmentâs plan?
âI hope Iâm not being overly critical,â Sridhar said, âbut this is not the first virus to emerge from this kind of setting and many things have been done in a way they should not have been done. We should not have been this surprised.â
Devi Sridhar warned in 2018 of the risk of animal viruses infecting people
ROBERTO RICCIUTI
Surely weâve got something right?
Until a few days ago one of the main concerns from worried scientists was that the government had been making questionable decisions without disclosing the reasons for its actions. âThey talked about a big plan but we havenât seen the plan or the evidence for it,â Sridhar complained on Thursday. âI still donât fully understand who the government is listening to and what is the goal.â
Late on Friday, the government moved to ease those concerns by publishing a detailed analysis of the potential impact of varying policy interventions. It is now much easier to understand official thinking on school closures, social distancing, working at home and other measures â though there is certain to be widespread disagreement about some of the governmentâs conclusions.
Even those wary of the governmentâs shifting virus strategies have found plenty to praise in the global response to a health emergency. âPeople keep talking about the 1918 influenza outbreak [which killed at least 20 million people],â said Sridhar. âBut weâre not in 1918, weâre in 2020. You have to give credit to the amazing science capability we have. We may be stuck in what feels like medieval times of quarantine right now but a lot of people around the world are working very hard on this, trying to find a solution.â
Clinical trials are under way on a range of drugs and combination therapies that may help fight the Covid-19 disease while the search for a vaccine continues. Lessons learnt from the 2013 ebola outbreak have transformed the responses of both the World Health Organisation and scientists who previously competed for results but are now pooling resources to an unprecedented degree.
âWith ebola it was like the worst of ivory tower politics played out in a crisis,â Sridhar said. âToday so much research is coming out quickly, with medical journals giving open access. It is really positive that we are not making the same mistakes as before.â
So in what sense have things gone wrong?
For Sridhar the first big missed opportunity came in late January when The Lancet, Britainâs leading medical journal, published its first account of the treatment of coronavirus patients in Wuhan. âI remember seeing that first paper and, excuse my language, I was like, âOh shit,ââ Sridhar said. Her old prediction was about to become horribly true. âAt that point we already knew the virus was going to come [to Britain] and all we could do was buy time. What we really needed was to get testing in place. But we didnât really respond.â
The next âsoberingâ moment was a report by a WHO mission that had travelled to China to study the virus. The report, published on February 24, reached two crucial conclusions: first that the impending pandemic was âextremely dangerousâ and âcan be a devastating virusâ; the second was that China had resorted to what Bruce Aylward, leader of the mission, referred to as âthe most ambitious . . . agile and aggressive disease containment effort in historyâ. The Chinese took âold-fashionedâ measures such as hand-washing and mask-wearing, and âturbo-chargedâ them with an âall-of-government, all-of-societyâ approach that included clearing giant hospitals to make way for virus patients, moving routine health services online and imposing drastic restrictions on movement.
âAt this point here in the UK we just kind of sat back and waited,â Sridhar said. âAt the time we should have been running simulations. How are we going to manage with 10 or 500 cases, where are we going to get ventilators, what about supply teams and tests? We have known about the clinical need from January.â
She concluded: âNo health service is prepared for this number of patients but February was really the time when we should have been full speed ahead. Today we still donât have enough masks and gowns for medical staff. I think itâs because [the planners] messed up.â Yesterday she added by tweet: âIt makes me feel nauseous how little action was taken early on. Academic navel-gazing and political in-fighting instead of bold decisive action.â
Other scientists argued that the government had been trying to strike a balance between combating the disease and preventing serious economic damage. âThere is no one-size-fits-all approach to controlling this unprecedented pandemic,â argued Professor Peter Piot of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). âThe UKâs approach . . . strikes a sound balance between managing the current public health crisis as well as the multiple and complex societal implications.â
Yet a dramatic change of government strategy last week, finally embracing the shutdown measures adopted by other countries from the start, provoked howls of frustration from many who had been bewildered by Downing Streetâs dithering about whether it might be better to allow the virus to spread so Britons acquired âherd immunityâ.
âI canât help but feel angry that it has taken almost two months for politicians and even âexpertsâ to understand the scale of the danger,â Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, tweeted on Tuesday. âThose dangers were clear from the very beginning. We have wasted seven weeks. This crisis was entirely preventable.â
Sridhar added: âWe decided to take a different path to other countries, thinking we knew better. We should have been learning from other countries about breaking the chain of transmission, mass testing, tracing contacts. If we had started with the 25,000 tests a day they are promising only now, we would already be bending that curve [of transmission rate]. Every day that goes by [without government action] we need harsher and harsher measures.â
IN YOUR INBOX
For a concise rundown of the developments that matter, combined with expert analysis, sign up to receive our dedicated daily coronavirus newsletter
What should our priorities be now?
The documents published by the government on Friday provide a long-term, if distinctly gloomy, framework for the coming year. Tough social distancing measures may be required until autumn, with the possibility of occasional let-ups as the crisis moves into next year. One paper examines the risk of public disorder âif there was a perception that the governmentâs response was not competentâ.
Other papers show exactly how much the government hopes to reduce peak transmission and how long it will take for lockdown measures to have an effect.
Top of Sridharâs wish list is protection for the NHS staff in the front lines of intensive care. She is scathing about the government account of intensive care capacity and how quickly medical staff would become overwhelmed. âWe are asking health workers in Covid-19 wards to put their lives on the line for our society, but they are not giving them tests. How are celebrities getting tests in private clinics while weâre not testing health workers constantly exposed to the virus?â
Other scientists have long been vocal on the need for more rigorous social distancing. âThe thing that is troubling me is the suggestion that the science has shifted,â said Professor Alan McNally of Birmingham University. âIt has not. The transmission dynamics and infectivity of the virus has not changed at all. The trajectory of the epidemic has been very predictable if one pays attention to China, Italy, Iran, Spain. My belief has not changed that we should have complete cessation of all public gatherings and social distancing. There needs to be a sustained practice of testing, including priority testing for healthcare workers.â
Are there any surprises coming our way?
One notable difference in Britain, compared with China or Italy, is the apparent lack of âa major outbreak epicentreâ, said Professor Jason Mercer, a virus cell biologist at Birmingham University. âIs this a blessing or a curse? Will the geographical distribution of UK infections flatten the infection curve . . . lowering the regional burden on the healthcare system? Or will this merely result in multiple large outbreak epicentres?â
Other scientists worry that assumptions previously fostered by the government â that summer weather will help reduce transmission or that infection leads to immunity for survivors â may turn out to be wrong, or only temporarily true. The virus is believed to be comparatively stable at the moment but might begin to mutate with unpredictable effects, meaning that preliminary conclusions established by researchers will need to be constantly monitored.
There is already concern that children may not be quite as resistant to the virus as early data suggested. Nevertheless British and Chinese researchers have hypothesised that there may be something about the human cells in a developing lung that somehow makes children less sensitive to this particular virus.
A study of more than 2,000 paediatric patients in China reported last week that while teenagers and younger children generally suffered less severe symptoms of illness, a higher-than-expected proportion of infants under one year old required intensive care. There have also been reports from America that obesity may be an underlying factor making infected younger adults more vulnerable to serious complications.
Play Video
Inside the lab trying to create a coronavirus vaccine
Is there any way of knowing if Iâve had the virus?
One of the âmillion-dollar questionsâ, said Sridhar. It will take time to develop a serology (blood) test that plays a different role to standard throat-swab testing for the presence or absence of the virus. A blood test that searches for antibody evidence of past disease will be enormously valuable to doctors and governments to learn how widely the virus spread; who had it and who did not.
The serology test will also help establish whether victims can be reinfected, and how long immunity may last. The evidence from other coronaviruses, said Sridhar, is that immunity is limited, âwhich is part of the reason we donât have any vaccines yet for coronavirusesâ.
In practical terms, if these questions can be answered, health workers who are known to have had the virus might be able to continue work without risk of contracting or passing on further infection. Professor Trudie Lang, a global health specialist at the Nuffield Department of Medicine at Oxford University, said the potential of an antibody test was âvery, very exciting. We could work out who we could put into healthcare provision and it would be very useful in the general population to know if youâve had it or not.â
Why donât we just nuke the Chinese bat caves?
This new virus is the latest case of âzoonotic infectionâ â transfer between animals and humans
GETTY
The new coronavirus is known to have originated in Chinese bats and passed to humans through some form of contaminated meat at a market in Wuhan. But the anger shared by some prominent politicians at Chinaâs perceived failures to prevent animal-to-human epidemics is not shared by many British scientists.
âThere are some really difficult questions weâve got to face globally about how meat is safely brought to the population,â noted Lang. âItâs very easy to say âNo more [live animal] marketsâ because we have refrigerators and refrigerated delivery. Itâs very easy for us to make judgments. But zoonotic infections â the transfer between animals and humans â have been around as long as humans have. That isnât going to change.â
Nor is there much hope that slaughtering bats will make much of a difference. âThere are thousands of infectious diseases circulating in the animal kingdom,â Sridhar said. âSome spill over into humans and of those only a tiny fraction move into sustainable human transmission.â Ridding the world of nasty animal viruses would essentially require ridding the world of animals.
While there is certain to come a time when Chinaâs role in the epidemic will come under intensive scrutiny, Sridhar and others are keen to preserve co-operation with Beijing, which is showing signs of intense irritation with efforts in America to blame the crisis on what Donald Trump insists on calling âthe Chinese virusâ. âWe need to work with China. We need data from China, we need the Chinese at the table,â Sridhar said.
What if we are overreacting?
Some scientists are more optimistic than others that the situation will quickly improve given the research effort being brought to bear. âIâm quite confident that probably in a matter of a couple of months, we are likely to find âoff-labelâ uses of current drugs that help treat an infected person,â said Piot of the LSHTM. âIn other words weâll have a new use for drugs that were originally used against other viral infections such as HIV.â
Professor John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University, California, caused a stir last week by warning that data was still insufficient to justify social distancing and lockdowns. âFlattening the curve to avoid overwhelming the health system is conceptually sound â in theory,â he said. âIf we decide to jump off the cliff, we need some data to inform us about the rationale of such an action and the chances of landing somewhere safe.â
The consequences of extreme lockdown measures may include âunpredictable evolutions . . . including financial crisis, unrest, civil war and a meltdown of the social fabric,â he said. âWith lockdowns of months, if not years, life largely stops, short-term and long-term consequences are entirely unknown and billions, not just millions, of lives may be eventually at stake.â
Ouch. So is Britain really on the right track?
Boris Johnsonâs belief that Britain can âturn the tideâ in the next 12 weeks â provided everyone does their bit on social distancing â is not shared by many scientists. The evidence from China, Italy and elsewhere suggests that a successful lockdown can certainly achieve the objective of slowing the pace of transmission and easing the pressure on health services. But there is a snag: no one yet knows what happens when normal life resumes.
âWe know that lockdowns work,â said Adam Kucharski, a researcher at the LSHTM and author of The Rules of Contagion, a new book examining the spread of infectious diseases. In a sign of the way much of Britain may be working for the next few months at least, Kucharski participated last week in a chaotic online seminar in which the organisers addressed an empty lecture hall in London while panellists tried to join in via video links from their homes.
The problem with the lockdowns, Kucharski went on, was that âif you lift them and go back to normal youâre going to get broken again because the virus is still circulating. And that is really the challenge a lot of modelling groups have been grappling with over the last few weeks. We know that a lockdown works but in the long term thatâs not really sustainable.â
A study by researchers at University College London suggested there would need to be a cycle of lockdown and reopening that might last at least 18 months, or until a vaccine can be delivered. âThe benefit, obviously, is that this will prevent our health system being overwhelmed and people will get the care they need,â Kucharski said. âThe limitation is that we will be moving into unprecedented territory in terms of impact. Even if you are lifting [restrictions] occasionally you are going to require a large portion of your year to be in lockdown mode.â
For Sridhar there is really no option. âIf you look at malaria, HIV, TB, even flu, scientists eventually figured out a way for some kind of solution for humanity,â she said. âWe found a polio vaccine, we have a flu vaccine, science has done well. Having some kind of treatment or a vaccine for the coronavirus will get us a long way.â But all that requires time, and a massive national effort to keep people alive until science delivers.
Almost three months into the crisis, the government has at least delivered a blueprint for action. Sridhar is among many who hope that politics can be set aside in a broad national effort to get through a nightmare. âThereâs more that unites us now in getting this under control,â she said. âWe all lose or we all win.â
YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED
What is still open?
Pubs, gyms and restaurants were told to shut on Friday night. However, some businesses are allowed to stay open, including supermarkets, newsagents, takeaways, department stores, pharmacies and post offices.
How long will the closures last?
The measures will be in place for at least two weeks. Their effectiveness will then be reviewed.
Can I go to my local park?
Yes, as long as you arenât sick or at risk, go on your own and stay 6ft from other walkers or joggers.
Is the postal service affected?
No. The Royal Mail recognises that letters will help those who are self-isolating feel less alone.
How can hairdressers protect themselves?
They could copy their counterparts in China, where some barbers have been wearing masks and using brushes and dryers attached to the end of long sticks.
Rosamund Urwin
UK POLICY OPTIONS â AND THEIR IMPACT
Stopping large events (concerts, sports etc)
Very little effect, without other measures, on delaying the spread of the virus or on deaths
Closure of schools
Up to 3 weeksâ delay; up to 5% fewer deaths
Home isolation of suspected cases
2-3 weeksâ delay; up to 5% fewer deaths
Whole household isolation
2-3 weeksâ delay; up to 10% fewer deaths
Social distancing
3-5 weeksâ delay; up to 20%-25% fewer deaths
Social distancing over-65s
Negligible delay; 20%-55% fewer deaths
NB Figures assume full public compliance. Combining measures may increase delay and further reduce deaths
Source: Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies
Just seen the crowds in the Wicklow Mts & Salthill on the news there. If we get a blast of fine weather we are goosed, unless people get inventive with going for a walk. Traffic on the Slieve Felim Way was âbriskâ earlier.
Thought I saw your big gomey head alright.
Certainly was if the arseholes didnât depress you
Six day wait for me then up to a three day wait for results
I think itâs just been the drive through which has been open recently
Everyone needs to calm the fuck down, a few people out for a walk wonât be the end of us
2 Likes
The figures for people who donât have it who have been tested are very encouraging as we only seem to be testing people with clear symptoms
I was in rossbeigh this morning. Was probably 100 odd cars there at that time but you wouldnât feel 1000 people on that beach its so big. Certainly no issue staying 2 m from others Id say I was never within 5m of anyone
10 Likes