FTOF

If anyone has missed Snowfall on the BBC I player (it's an FX production), all three seasons (10 episodes each)are available. It is excellent. It's about the rise of crack cocaine in 1980's Los Angeles, with the main focus on how a young dealer's life develops as a result. Probably best not watched with the kids about. Just about to watch the last episode of season three. Jett on SKY 1 was great too. Again, best not watched with kids about.

Combined with existing chronic mental health issues, stress could potentially have the same end result in someone with underlying health issues, who has severe infection of the virus. Any effects of the lockdown combined with any treatment restrictions, on mental health conditions, in their many manifestations, could be hugely significant in the short term and long term. I don't think we can underestimate the effects of stress on all individuals in the current situation.

I've been going out for a walk around 6.30/7.00 every evening and generally the streets have been totally deserted. I went out yesterday about 3.00 and it was pretty busy. However, most people, including myself, were making sure that social distancing was well observed, as they passed each other. It will be back to an evening walk for me from now on.

Not really the type of site you should want to be using as support for your argument - if, indeed, that is what you were doing. Indeed. There may well be some truth in some of the statements pathologist makes, which are contrary to the current beliefs, however the principles embraced by that particular website are particularly vile.

A possible contender. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/52165108

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18352707.sec-row-emerges-louisa-jordan-hospital-amid-nightingaleglasgow-snub/ Turns out they are just behaving like unionist fannies.

https://www.livescience.com/is-coronavirus-deadly.html

Has there been any reliable data released regarding the percentage of deaths from no known/as yet undiscovered underlying conditions? A couple of articles I've read, indicate that as a result of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, the death rate for the aforementioned group was around 10%. Could help in working out just how virulent the current virus is.

The areas that I've highlighted are hugely salient points. This lockdown is unprecedented, and, as such, there will have been no studies that can predict its effects on, say for example, cardiovascular health. The potential for a significant increase in deaths due to cardiovascular health deterioration as a result of someone working from home sitting on their arse for three months, who is unable to be active at work or attend a gym regularly, is clear and present. Of course people can go for a walk, as I try to do every day. That's not the same as being on your feet all day or attending a gym regularly. Others will have their exercise regime restricted by child care etc. Six months down the line if someone dies of cardiovascular disease, where the lockdown has been a contributing factor, then would it even be possible to ascertain whether the lockdown was a contributing factor? Similarly, the lockdown may be enough to cause further deterioration to the health of someone with specific mental health issues. Worst case scenario being an increase in suicides. Deaths from cardiovascular disease and suicides largely go unreported, and are often accepted as run of the mill, possibly due to pre-conceived, stereotypical views on the type of individual assumed to be most likely to succumb to these illnesses. There's also the possibility that they will increase gradually, so the general public probably wouldn't be aware that anything different was happening. For these reasons, I doubt we'll ever really be able to measure reliably the impact of the lockdown on overall health. As much as I agree with the principles behind the lockdown, I really, really hope that we haven't overreacted, based on inaccurate recording of data, and that we haven't created a ticking time bomb in the future. It's certainly food for thought.

Probably because she doesn't come across as a bumbling halfwit. A lot of the public's perception on how well matters are progressing are based on the manner in which news is delivered.

This is the main problem. This has happened so quickly that it just hasn't been possible peer review research to the degree that is required. Rightly or wrongly it has probably come down to which model predicts the scenario which prevents the most deaths, whether the model is wholly reliable or not. Again, rightly or wrongly, the majority of the general public will judge a government on the number of lives lost, as opposed to the economic consequences. Certainly in the shorter term. Given the unreliability of the data to date, it would a nightmare to peer review any work at the best of times, never mind just now. FWIW, other than the complete failure to set up testing for the virus quickly enough, I don't really have any issue at with the current lockdown strategy. Although, I might not be expressing this viewpoint in a couple of weeks time! And if respected Scientists, with a good track record, provide evidence that maybe there are improvements required with the modelling or tactics that we employ, then the quote below should be heeded.

In a similar vein...……..

NHS workers testing centre in Glasgow Airport should be up and running by Sunday.

No mention of the results of testing in Iceland? https://www.covid.is/data

Must be only certain homes that have been earmarked, as this could only really work in NHS contracted care homes. My wife's company has between 20-30 care homes in Scotland. She had a conference call with her senior management colleagues this morning and they had no communication regarding anything like this from the NHS/Government/Care inspectorate.