[ritchiebaby]

I'm with 0762 in his last two sentences. Too little, too late might be oversimplifying the response, but too late is 100% correct in almost every country. South Korea seems to have been best in dealing with the virus, as they have placed testing as their priority. Surely the best way to stop any virus spreading is to identify the likely sources of the spread and isolate them.

I watched the zombie aka Matt Hancock on The Andrew Marr Show this morning and was amazed (but not surprised) to find that the Government are doing as little as possible, whilst giving the impression they are in control. Topping that performance was his announcement that their priority was to save lives and protect the vulnerable, at the same time as saying that the over 70s (that's me) and vulnerable (me again, I suppose) would be advised to self-isolate at an indeterminate date for an indefinite period. Presumably those groups are those most at risk from a virus spread by the healthier under-70s.

Two points here :-
1. If they really want to protect those groups as a priority, why did they not do this right at the start?
2. From my point of view, it would make much more sense to isolate the under-70s (being the likely carriers) and allow the over-70s freedom of movement and enjoy their last days before the ventilators are switched off.

Again supermarkets are going to ask customers to be reasonable and not buy too many toilet rolls, anti-bac, etc. Yet again my answer would be for the supermarkets to impose a rationing system. My local Aldi does, but I suppose that's much too sensible for the up-market lot to understand.

As far as Governments of all colours and affiliations are concerned, my attitude is still   but only a cough away from